Judgment : D. Hariparanthaman, J 1. The writ petitioner in all these writ petitions is an industry, entered into a settlement with the first respondent in each of the writ petitions under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 2. As per the said settlement, the writ petitioner shall pay certain amount to the first respondent/workman in each of the writ petitions, in two instalments and on receipt of the first instalment, the first respondent in each of the writ petitions/workman shall vacate the quarters. 3. The first respondent in each of the writ petitions /workman received the first instalment and also vacated the quarters and the same was recorded by the concerned Magistrate under Section 630 of the Companies Act, in so far as the first respondent in W.P.Nos. 21793 and 21794 of 2013 and the first respondent in W.P.No.21792 of 2013, though he has received the first instalment of settlement amount from the writ petitioner and vacated the quarters, he did not appear before the Magistrate. 4. l While so, the writ petitioner/Management filed applications in I.A.Nos. 371 to 373 of 2013 in I.D.Nos. 157 to 159 of 2012 to pass an award in terms of the settlement under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act in the respective Industrial Disputes. 5. The workman in each of the Industrial Disputes filed counter affidavit opposing the same and in these circumstances, the impugned order was passed by the second respondent on 29.7.2013, directing the first respondent/workman in each of the writ petitions to return money that was received by them as first instalment pursuant to the settlement under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The writ petitions have been filed as against the impugned order issuing such direction. 6. Hence, there will be an order of interim stay . Notice. 7. In view of the order passed in M.P.No.3 of 2013, there is no need to pass any order in M.P.No.2 seeking interim injunction.