Judgment K.KANNAN, J. 1. The workman, who obtained the relief of reinstatement and back wages, availed back wages alone in a case where the management challenged the award of the Labour Court through aCivil Writ Petition No. 957/1972. The Division Bench of this Court permitted the workman to receive the amount which was deposited by the management on furnishing security bond. Under the document, executed on February 10, 1972, the workman obligated himself to repay the amount if the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh, were to be set aside. His house property, was offered as security. It turned out that the award of the Industrial Tribunal was set aside and the workmans claim for reinstatement ultimately failed in a fresh enquiry that was conducted before the Industrial Tribunal pursuant to the directions of the Honble High Court. 2. The application for restitution that been filed in the year 1984 by the management for recovery of an amount of Rs. 20,791.22 that had been paid to the workman. The Industrial Tribunal passed an order on June 2, 1986 directing the workman to repay the amount within two months. The amount was not paid and a fresh application was filed by the management again for recovery of the amount. The Presiding Officer passed on order on April 30,1987 holding that the application did not lie before that Court. It is this judgment which is challenged before this Court. 3. In a case where there was a permission to the workman to receive money on furnishing security bond, when the management became entitled to obtain refund when the decision of the Industrial Tribunal was set aside, the enforcement of the security bond would have been the only appropriate remedy. The application before the Labour Court for recovery of money and the order of the Court stating that the amount shall be paid within two months are more in the nature of stating the obvious that the management was entitled to recover the money that was already protected under the security bond, No provision is shown to me by the learned counsel as available under the Industrial Disputes Act for the employer to recover any amount from the employee. The management was undoubtedly pursuing a remedy for recovery before a forum in a manner which was not permissible. The management was undoubtedly pursuing a remedy for recovery before a forum in a manner which was not permissible. The rejection of the petition by the Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh, under the circumstances, is, therefore, perfectly justified. 4. The management if it is so advised and if it is feasible as regards law of limitation, may resort to any other action for recovery in anenforcement of the security bond. Subject to this liberty, the writ petition is dismissed affirming the order passed by the Labour Court,