Judgment :- Heard both sides. The first Writ Petition in W.P.No.16757 of 1998 is filed by one A. Periyakaruppan and 22 other workmen seeking for a direction to the first respondent, the District Collector, Sivaganga to recover the total amount of Rs.4,28,484/-as per G.O.Ms.No.(D) No.613 dated 7. 1996 from the fourth and fifth respondents and realise the same and give it to the petitioners with an interest @ 16% p.a. The said G.O came to be issued in terms of Sec.33-C(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 enabling the Government to recover any amount computed by the Labour Court as an arrear of Land Revenue. 2. As a sequel to that proceeding, Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Sivagangai R.W.S. Division has filed the writ petition challenging the said G.O and the order in claim petition in the second writ petition. 3. A perusal of the orders of the Labour Court it is clearly seen that the Labour Court dealt with the rival submissions including the written arguments supplied by Tamil Nadu Water Supply Board. Even though the order of the Labour Court in C.P.NOs.130 and 150 of 1993 was under challenge, the certified copies of the said orders were not enclosed along with the writ petition and what was enclosed is only the gist of the order containing the computation made by the Labour Court. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed solely on the ground that the petitioners had failed to challenge the order by producing certified copies of the orders under challenge. 4. Mr. S. Arunachalam, learned counsel appearing for the workmen produced certified copies of the orders, wherein, the Labour Court had directed grant of wages for the workmen for the festival and weekly off availed by them. If the workmen in the present case can produce the certified copies, there is no reason why the TWAD Board cannot produce the certified copies at the time of admission of the writ petition. The attitude of the TWAD Board in producing the gist order supplied free of cost in terms of Rule 54 of Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 cannot be accepted. This Court while dispensing justice in a writ jurisdiction more particularly for the issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari cannot deal with a matter without the order of the Court under challenge before it. 5. However, Ms. This Court while dispensing justice in a writ jurisdiction more particularly for the issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari cannot deal with a matter without the order of the Court under challenge before it. 5. However, Ms. Sudharsana Sunder learned counsel appearing for the TWAD Board submits that even de hors the order, the workman is not eligible in getting the payment as ordered by the Labour Court. She made two submissions in that regard. The first was that subsequent to a Sec. 12(3) settlement, the workmen were disqualified from claiming any amount on account of their reinstatement. Secondly, the liability to make payment falls with the Local body and not with the TWAD Board especially when the scheme was entrusted to the Local body. 6. Though this Court is not called upon to decide these two issues, which were never raised before the Labour Court, yet with a view to keep the record in order, the same are dealt with. It must be stated Sec. 12(3) settlement, over which heavy reliance is placed. relating to reinstatement of workman without any back wages, the same cannot take away the rights of the workmen the right which accrued in terms of Tamil Nadu Industrial Employment Establishment ( National and Festival Holidays Act), wherein employers are obligated to pay wages for the festival and national holidays mentioned therein. Therefore, the first submission has no merits. 7. The second submission relates to entrustment of the scheme to the local body. It must be stated that the Water Supply Board executes schemes which are entrusted to the local bodies. The workmen are also sent along with the scheme and until such time, the local bodies absorbs those workmen, it can only be deemed that they are the employees of the Board. 8. In the present case, since the schemes have been continued to be maintained by the TWAD board and therefore, the liability to make payment in respect of the workmen, and they continue to receive payment only from the Board there is no jurisdictional error in the Labour Courts Order directing the TWAD Board to make payments in terms of law. 9. In the present case, the computation order was passed as early as 13. 9. In the present case, the computation order was passed as early as 13. 1996 and it is only after the workmen approached the Government for the issuance of the revenue recovery certificate under Sec.33(C)(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, (which itself was issued on 7. 1996), the petitioner has filed the writ petitions after a period of two years and even on the ground of delay and laches the writ petitions are also liable to be rejected. Accordingly, these writ petitions fail and the same are dismissed. 10. The Management is hereby directed to comply with the order of the Labour Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.