Judgment A.H. JOSHI, J. 1. Heard learned Advocates for the parties at length. 2. Admit, 3. Appeal is taken up for final hearing by consent of parties. Perused the record annexed to paper book of LPA. 4. The Appellant has filed present LPA challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of this court thereby partly refusing to grant interim relief while issuing Rule on the Writ Petition. 5. The grounds on which the LPA is preferred, could be conveniently assorted from the appeal memo and oral submissions, and those are summarized as below:— (a) The award passed in Reference I.D. No. 51 of 1979 had ceased to exist. (b) The claim of the appellant was refused by the common award rendered in Reference I.D. Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of 1993, which was delivered on 21-2-2005. (The date of notification of award in the official Gazette has not come on record.) (c) The blanket protection or right of absorption/appointment on compassionate ground which existed in the award in Reference I.D. No. 51/1979 is qualified by the subsequent award and now, absorption/appointment on compassionate ground is available only subject to Government Resolutions/decisions already in vogue, applicable to Government/Semi Government organizations and local bodies. (d) The award results in pecuniary burden. (e) There is lack of sanctioned posts. (f) The posts which were not filled in, have lapsed due to the policy of State and hence, there is no post in existence to appoint the complainant No. 2 on compassionate basis. 6. It is not in dispute that Shri Ganpat Ambekar, the father of the complainant No. 1 and husband of complainant No. 2 was in the employment of the appellant. Ganpat Ambekar retired on account of disability. On the date of retirement, award passed in Reference I.D. No. 51 of 1979 was governing the field. The Reference I.D. Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of 1993 were pending and those references were decided by judgment and award dated 21-2-2005, and award of 1979 ceased to operate only after 21-2-2005. 7. The complaint under M.R.T.U. and F.U.L.P. Act, being Complaint (ULP) No. 111/2003 was filed by the respondents on 28th April, 2003. The foundation of the complaint was right of appointment on compassionate basis which was in existence under the Award of 1979, and employer's failure to implement it, which act amounted to be an unfair labour practice. 8. 7. The complaint under M.R.T.U. and F.U.L.P. Act, being Complaint (ULP) No. 111/2003 was filed by the respondents on 28th April, 2003. The foundation of the complaint was right of appointment on compassionate basis which was in existence under the Award of 1979, and employer's failure to implement it, which act amounted to be an unfair labour practice. 8. The crucial pleading is contained in paragraph numbers 3 and 4 of the complaint. It has been met with a cryptic non-descriptive version of an evasive and bare denial as contained in the written statement. 9. The learned Member, Industrial Court, decided the complaint on receiving complainants' evidence on affidavit and after hearing oral submissions of the parties, by judgment and order dated 8th June, 2006. 10. The Industrial Court granted the declaration as regards Unfair Labour Practice and granted relief, the relevant text of which, reads thus:— “2. It is hereby declared that the respondents have engaged in an unfair labour practice under Item-9 of Schedule IV of the said Act. They are restrained from continuing the same henceforth. 3. The respondents are directed to provide employment to the complainant No. 2 Smt. Chandrakala Piraji Ambekar in Class IV category from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 28-4-2003 without any previous monetary benefits till 8-8-2006 i.e. date of implementation of order. 4. The respondents are further directed to pay the difference of actual paid wages and wages as per Vth Pay Commission including other consequential benefits to the complainant No. 1 Piraji Ganpat Ambekar within the period of three months from the date of order.” [quoted from operative part of judgment and order of Industrial Court passed in Complaint (ULP) No. 111/2003] 11. On perusal of the judgment of the learned Member of Industrial Court, it is seen that the reasons which are foundation of award are incorporated in sub paragraph of paragraph number 8. The relevant portion is eloquent and it would be useful to refer to it. The same reads thus:— “8 …………………In my opinion also mere pendency of certain dispute in courts cannot make the earlier award un-effective unless those are set aside or the earlier award was replaced by the subsequent award. The relevant portion is eloquent and it would be useful to refer to it. The same reads thus:— “8 …………………In my opinion also mere pendency of certain dispute in courts cannot make the earlier award un-effective unless those are set aside or the earlier award was replaced by the subsequent award. In the decision of Kerala High Court relied by the complainant (supra) it has been laid down that the terms of award continue to bind the parties as terms of employment until they are modified by fresh settlement or award. In instant case admittedly at the relevant time, i.e. when the complainant No. 1 was superannuated and the present complaint was filed before the court, the award passed in Reference (IT) No. 51/1979 was in existence and not replaced by subsequent award and the awards in Reference (IT) No. 2/1993, 3/1993 and 4/1993 were passed during the pendency of the present complaint therefore the award passed in Reference (IT) No. 51/1979 was certainly applicable to the present case.” [quoted from judgment and order of Industrial Court passed in Complaint(ULP) No. 111/2003] 12. As the member of the Industrial Court held that award number 51 of 1979 was certainly applicable to the case of the complainant, consequential reliefs were granted. Other discussion pertains to consequential relief, hence, we omit to refer to the same. 13. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in Complaint (ULP) No. 111 of 2003, the employer/present appellant preferred Writ Petition No. 7438 of 2009 on 13-10-2006. Said writ petition was heard for admission hearing before learned Single Judge of this Court. The learned Single Judge passed an order on 18-12-2006. Relevant portion of the said order, reads thus:— “Rule. Rule returnable early. Interim relief only in respect of payment of benefits under 5th Pay Commission.” [quoted from order dated 18-12-2006 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 7438/2009] 14. It is thus clear that the order granting interim relief to the extent of arrears of payment of benefits under the 5th Pay Commission, is stayed, whereas, the order of absorption or employment on compassionate ground is not stayed. 15. It is thus clear that the order granting interim relief to the extent of arrears of payment of benefits under the 5th Pay Commission, is stayed, whereas, the order of absorption or employment on compassionate ground is not stayed. 15. The order of learned Single Judge, indirectly refusing interim relief/stay to the order of learned Industrial Tribunal directing to provide employment to the respondent — Smt. Chandrakala Piraji Ambekar in Class IV category, from the date of filing of complaint, is under challenge in this LPA. 16. In the light of the grounds raised and submissions advanced, it would be useful to have a quick look at the background which is the crucial question of fact and law involved in the case. 17. On the date of filing of Complaint (ULP) No. 111 of 2003, the award which was governing the conditions of service, inter alia, other terms was, the Award of 1979. The Industrial Court was required to decide the Complaint (ULP) No. 111/2003 on the basis of rights and obligations between the parties as were prevalent on the date of filing of the complaint, i.e. award of 1979, which though terminated, was not substituted. 18. The restriction on the right of compassionate appointment of dependents or heirs of ex-employees was imposed by the Industrial Tribunal in the award in Reference (IT) Nos. 2, 3 and 4 all of 1993 decided on 21-2-2005 while deciding the dispute relating to the general demands and particularly for continuing the concession of compassionate appointment. This award was passed after filing of Complaint (ULP) No. 111 of 2003, in the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar. 19. In the result, the foundation of judgment of Industrial Court was that denial of the right of the dependent or heir of ex-employee, for compassionate appointment arising out of the award of 1979 which was in force, amounts to commission of Unfair Labour Practice. Said non observance of award and denial of right comes within the mischief of Item No. 9 of Schedule IV, of the M.R.T.P. And P.U.L.P. 20. Said non observance of award and denial of right comes within the mischief of Item No. 9 of Schedule IV, of the M.R.T.P. And P.U.L.P. 20. It is not shown as to how the judgment and order passed in Complaint (ULP) No. 111/2003, by the Industrial Court invades any law having an over riding force or effect over the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and the MRTU and PULP Act or is otherwise illegal, due to which, learned Single Judge was under duty to stay the judgment of Industrial Court. In this situation, we find that no other interim order, than the one passed by the learned Single Judge could have been passed to strike the balance of justice. 21. We, therefore, decline to grant any indulgence. In the result, we dismiss this appeal for the facts and reasons contained in foregoing paragraph. 22. We observe that the discussion on merit became necessary as the appeal was argued with full vigour. We make it clear that the question of law and facts, as may be argued before the learned Single Judge as and when the writ petition would be heard, will be decided while deciding the writ petition on its own merits, as may be found by the court. Parties are directed to bear own costs. Appeal dismissed.