JUDGMENT 1. - To challenge an order dated 04th August, 2005 passed by the Labour Court, Sriganganagar by exercising powers under Section 33(c)(ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, this petition for writ is preferred. 2. In brief, facts of the case are that by an award dated 16th April, 2004 Labour Court while answering a reference made to it by the appropriate Government under a notification dated 23rd June, 2003 declared retrenchment of respondent-workman illegal and granted relief for reinstatement in service with 50% of back wages. The petitioner-employer assailed validity of the award dated 16th April, 2004 by way of filing a writ petition before this Court but that came to be rejected on 02nd September, 2005. Respondent-workman for determination of backwages and wages arising as a consequence to his reinstatement submitted an application as per provisions of sec.33(c)(ii) of the Act of 1947. The application aforesaid came to be accepted by order impugned dated 04th August, 2005. 3. By this petition for writ, challenge to the order passed by Labour Court under sec.33(c)(ii) of the Act of 1947 is given on the count that a Special Appeal is pending consideration before this Court and therefore, Labour Court should have restrained from deciding application under sec.33(c)(ii) of the Act of 1947. 4. I do not find any merit in the contention advanced. As per averments made in the petition for writ, it is apparent that the award was passed on 16th April, 2004 and a petition for writ giving challenge to the award aforesaid also came to be rejected on 02nd September, 2005. The employer should have made compliance of the award as there is no interim order operating in favour of employer. As per definition of 'unfair labour practice' defined under the Act of 1947, non-compliance of award is unfair labour practice and for that an employer can be prosecuted as per provisions of sec.25-U of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 5. By filing this petition for writ, as a matter of fact, it appears that the petitioner wants to shirk from the responsibility for making compliance of the award passed by the Labour Court and also to avoid prosecution as required to be made as per provisions of sec.25-U of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 6. 5. By filing this petition for writ, as a matter of fact, it appears that the petitioner wants to shirk from the responsibility for making compliance of the award passed by the Labour Court and also to avoid prosecution as required to be made as per provisions of sec.25-U of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 6. The petition for writ does not require any interference by this Court while exercising powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed accordingly.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******