R. S. GARG, J. ( 1 ) MR. Rajni Mehta, Senior Counsel with Mr. Ajay Mehta for the appellants. Mr. T. R. Mishra, leaned counsel for the respondents. ( 2 ) PARTIES are finally heard. Learned counsel for the appellants at the very outset, submitted that the judgment dated 11. 4. 2001 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 3290 of 2000 basically is based upon interpretation of the notification dated 9. 12. 76 issued by the Central Government under Section 10 (1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and the judgment also places reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matters of Gujarat Electricity Board, Thermal Power Station, Ukai, Gujarat Vs. Hind Mazdoor Sabha and others, (1995) 5 CC 27, and Air India Statutory Corporation and others Vs. United Labour Union and others, (1997) 7 SCC 377. He submitted that the judgment by the learned Single Judge was delivered on 11. 4. 2001, but thereafter, Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the matter of Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs. National Union Waterfront Workers and others, (2001) 7 SCC page 1, decided on 30th August, 2001, has quashed the said notification and has also overruled the said two judgments, and consequently, the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge at this stage, would become foundationless. He also submits that though the judgment in the matter of Steel Authority of India Ltd. (supra) says that the said notification and the two judgments are quashed/overruled prospectively, but in the present matter, the appeal being continuation of the suit, the judgment would apply. ( 3 ) MR. T. R. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents wanted to support the judgment on some or more grounds. He submitted inter alia, that on certain other facts and issues, the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge can be maintained. ( 4 ) AFTER hearing him for some time, we must observe that the questions which are raised by him were not raised before the learned Single and there appears to be no consideration of those issues. ( 5 ) IN the fitness of things, we must observe that the judgment dated 11. 4. 2001 cannot be allowed to stand in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Steel Authority of India Ltd. (supra ). ( 5 ) IN the fitness of things, we must observe that the judgment dated 11. 4. 2001 cannot be allowed to stand in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Steel Authority of India Ltd. (supra ). Accordingly, we set aside the said judgment with an observation that on 11. 4. 2001, the said judgment was a valid judgment, but in view of the subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court, it cannot be allowed to stand. The matter is remitted to the learned Single Judge with a request to him to give an opportunity of hearing to the parties and decide the matter afresh taking into consideration the observations made by the Supreme Court in the matter of Steel Authority of India Ltd. (supra ). The appeal to the extent indicated above and the observations made aforesaid, is allowed. It is however, directed that the benefits flowing from Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, shall be continued in favour of the workmen till the final orders by the learned Single Judge. .