JUDGMENT : Paresh Upadhyay, J. Heard Mr.S.J.Gaekwad, learned advocate for the petitioner - Employer, and Mr.Subramaniam Iyer, learned advocate for the contesting respondent No.1- the workman. 2. Challenge in this petition is made to, (i) the award of the Labour Court, Vadodara in Reference (LCV) No.457 of 2003 dated 15.05.2006, and (ii) the order dated 04.05.2007 in Misc. Application No.78 of 2006, and (iii) the order dated 19.09.2007 in Misc. Application No.34 of 2007 in Misc. Application No.78 of 2006 in Reference (LCV) No.457 of 2003. The said applications were filed under Rule 26A before the Labour Court for recall of the ex-parte award/ order, which were rejected. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner Employer has submitted that, the petitioner was in the business of Shroff and Commission Agent at Vadodara. It was a registered firm, and the said business was subsequently prohibited by the Government, and therefore the petitioner could have been continued it. It is submitted that, under these circumstances the service of the respondent came to be discontinued, which gave arise to the dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. It is submitted that the Employer in his personal capacity could not attend the proceedings before the Labour Court, and the matter went ex-parte. Thereafter, an application was filed which also, could not be attended by the Employer, however the subsequent application which was rejected on 19.09.2007, was contested but the Labour Court did not grant the same. It is contended that, since the employer could not continue the business legally, the case would be covered by the provisions of Section 25-FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is submitted that, whatever benefits, which the concerned Employee is entitled to receive, needs to be paid to him and to which the petitioner employer does not have any objection. It is further submitted that, the amount Rs. 20,000/- is already deposited by the petitioner employer in the Registry of this Court on 28.03.2008, pursuant to the order of this Court dated 25.03.2008. It is further submitted that, the compensation which is otherwise payable to the workman would not be more than Rs. 6,000/- but still the petitioner does not have any objection, if the workman is permitted to withdraw the entire amount of Rs. 20,000/- which is deposited before this Court. It is further submitted that, the compensation which is otherwise payable to the workman would not be more than Rs. 6,000/- but still the petitioner does not have any objection, if the workman is permitted to withdraw the entire amount of Rs. 20,000/- which is deposited before this Court. It is submitted that, the reinstatement of the concerned employee in the present case would mean that the employer may restart the business which otherwise is prohibited under the law, which could not have been done, and therefore this Court may quash and set aside the impugned award passed by the Labour Court. Learned advocate for the petitioner has also relied on the decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the cases of Hondaram Ramchandra v. Yeshwant Mahadev Kadam, reported in (2007) 14 SCC 277 , and District Red Cross Society v. Babita Arora and Ors., reported in (2007) 7 SCC 366 . 4. On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondent workman has submitted that, the matter is to be looked at, as it stands before this Court. It is submitted, no submission, as is being made before this Court now, was advanced before the Labour Court, and therefore the order of the Labour Court cannot be interfered with, on the ground which was not pressed into service before it. Reliance is also placed on the decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No.2407 of 1999 dated 06.04.1999, as confirmed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.362 of 2000 vide order dated 02.08.2000, and as subsequently followed by this Court. It is also submitted that, even the order of this Court to grant wages under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was challenged in Letters Patent Appeal No.1406 of 2009 in Civil Application No.3936 of 2009 which was dismissed on 21.01.2014. It is submitted that, no jurisdictional error is committed by the Labour Court, and therefore this Court may not interfere and this petition be dismissed. 5. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, this Court finds that, true it is that the petitioner Employer was negligent in pursuing its remedy before the Labour Court and to contend that, reinstatement of the concerned workman would amount to directing a citizen to do a business which is otherwise prohibited under the law. The learned advocate for the respondent is also right to the extent that, the factor which was not pressed into service before the Labour Court cannot be permitted to be agitated before this Court for the first time. However in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, where the activity which the present employer was doing, is held to be impermissible in law, permitting the award of reinstatement to stand, would amount to directing a citizen to do an illegal business, which can not be done and therefore, on that count alone, the impugned award needs to be quashed and set aside. The decisions cited by the learned advocate for the workman would not help him in these peculiar circumstances. 6. Coming to the next question of granting relief to the concerned workman, this Court finds that, there is substantial force in the submission of learned advocate for the petitioner employer that, the concerned workman would be entitled to compensation, to the extent of wages of three months as provided under Section 25-FFF of the Act. The respondent workman was getting wages of Rs. 1950/- per month. The compensation therefore would not be more than Rs. 6,000/-. The amount Rs. 20,000/- is already deposited with the Registry of this Court by the petitioner Employer. He does not have any objection, if the entire amount is permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent workman, which is much more than his entitlement. Under these circumstances, the respondent workman is permitted to withdraw the said amount of Rs. 20,000/- from the registry of this Court. 7. So far the reference made by the learned advocate for the respondent, to the dismissal of Letters Patent Appeal No.1406 of 2009 vide order dated 21.01.2014 is concerned, it transpires from the order sheet of this petition that, it is not that the petitioner employer has earned the order of Stay against the implementation of the award of reinstatement. The order-sheet shows conscious attempt on the part of the respondent workman, to create a situation, where only after earning the entitlement under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, the workman appeared to contest. Reference can be made to the orders dated 26.12.2008, 29.12.2008 and 03.02.2009. The order-sheet shows conscious attempt on the part of the respondent workman, to create a situation, where only after earning the entitlement under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, the workman appeared to contest. Reference can be made to the orders dated 26.12.2008, 29.12.2008 and 03.02.2009. It transpires that only after, and soon after, the matter was admitted and stay order was granted, contest came and application to claim wages under Section 17B of the Act, was filed, on which order was passed by this Court on 20.04.2009. The workman is within his rights to do so, but this certainly shows the conduct of the workman that he was more interested in ideal wages, less in adjudication of the dispute. The filing of Appeal against the order of grant of wages under Section 17B, and dismissal thereof on the ground it being not maintainable, is hardly any relevant factor, on the merits of the matter. 8. For the reasons recorded above, this petition is allowed and the following order is passed. 8.1 The impugned award passed by the Labour Court, Vadodara in Reference (LCV) No.457 of 2003 dated 15.05.2006 is quashed and set aside. 8.2 Since the award is quashed and set aside, subsequent orders passed by the Labour Court i.e. the order dated 04.05.2007 in Misc. Application No.78 of 2006, and the order dated 19.09.2007 in Misc. Application No.34 of 2007 in Misc. Application No.78 of 2006 in Reference (LCV) No.457 of 2003, would not survive, and are quashed and set aside. 8.3 It is held that, the respondent workman is entitled to compensation of three months wages under Section 25-FFF of the Act. Though it would not be more than Rs. 6,000/-, in view of the consent of the petitioner employer to permit the respondent to withdraw the entire amount of Rs. 20,000/- deposited before this Court, it is ordered that, Registry shall permit the respondent workman, in the prescribed procedure, to withdraw the said amount of Rs. 20,000/- which deposited pursuant to order of this Court dated 25.03.2008. 8.4 Since the award is quashed and set aside, Recovery Proceedings before the Labour Court pursuant thereto, would now not survive. 8.5 Rule is made absolute to the above extent. No order as to costs.