ORDER : A.S. Bopanna, J. 1. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 08.11.2012 passed in Application No. 4/2011 impugned at Annexure - 'A' to the petition. 2. The Respondents No. 1 to 6 herein seeking that the amount due to them had not been paid by the petitioners and the Respondents No. 7 and 8 herein had filed an application under Section 33 (C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking computation of the amount. The application was registered in No. 4/2011 and the Labour Court at Mysore through its order dated 08.11.2012 has directed that the amount as indicated therein be paid to the Respondents No. 1 to 6 herein. An observation is made that the Respondents No. 1 and 2 viz., Respondents No. 7 and 8 herein make the payments no sooner they receive the grants from the Government. It is in that view, the petitioners are before this Court assailing the order impugned by contending that the question of making any grant by the petitioners herein would not arise. 3. The learned Government Advocate while assailing the order impugned would with reference to the grounds raised in the petition contend that the Labour Court at the first instance through its award dated 25.01.2010 passed in IID No. 217/2002 had rejected the claim petition against the petitioners herein. In that view, it is contended that when the proceedings under Section 33(C)(2) was based on the said award, no order directing payment by the petitioners could be made. Further, reference is made to the order dated 28.09.2012 passed in W.P. No. 14213/2008 at Annexure - 'M' to the petition to contend that a learned Single Judge of this Court in the said case had referred in detail, the manner in which the procedure is to be followed before admitting a Hostel to the salary-grant and therefore, in the present circumstances, when there is no material available to indicate that the Respondents No. 7 and 8 -Hostel was admitted to such grant, the question of paying such amount would not arise. In addition, reference is made to the additional affidavit filed in this petition and the Government orders produced thereto to point out that the appropriate procedure that is required to be followed before payment of grant-in-aid to the Hostels being run by the Social Welfare Department is made. In addition, reference is made to the additional affidavit filed in this petition and the Government orders produced thereto to point out that the appropriate procedure that is required to be followed before payment of grant-in-aid to the Hostels being run by the Social Welfare Department is made. In that view, it is contended that in the instant facts, the question of providing any grant would not arise and therefore, no liability can arise against the petitioners herein and in that view, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents would however seek to sustain the order passed by the Labour Court. It is pointed out that the award at the first instance was with regard to the reinstatement portion and to that extent, since the act of reinstatement was to be complied by the Principal of the College, to that extent, a direction has been issued and the exoneration of the Government was only to that extent. It is pointed out that before the Labour Court arrived at a conclusion to pass the award in favour of Respondents No. 1 to 6, the manner in which they were performing the duties in the said Hostel was taken into consideration and in that light, the documents referred to would indicate that the grants were also being received. In addition, reference is made to the order dated 20.09.2006 in W.P. No. 43674/2004 to point out that in respect of certain employees of the very same Hostel being run by the Respondents No. 7 and 8, a learned single Judge of this Court had arrived at a conclusion that the salaries be paid by the Government. 5. In the light of the rival contentions, a perusal of the petition papers would indicate that the order impugned dated 08.11.2012 passed in Application No. 4/2011 is in furtherance of the payment of the benefits, which had been granted by the Labour Court through its award dated 25.01.2010 in IID No. 217/2002 and in that light, the Respondents No. 1 to 6 herein were seeking payment of the amounts due to them as salary. Therefore, what would be relevant for consideration in the present facts is also with regard to the nature of the consideration that had been made at the first instance by the Labour Court through its award dated 25.01.2010. Therefore, what would be relevant for consideration in the present facts is also with regard to the nature of the consideration that had been made at the first instance by the Labour Court through its award dated 25.01.2010. Before adverting to that aspect of the matter, what is necessary to be also noticed is that the learned Government Advocate had placed reliance on the order dated 28.09.2012 passed in W.P. No. 14213/2008 and connected petitions. The reference as made from Paragraph No. 20 of the order would indicate that this Court had referred to the manner in which the Hostel being run under the grant of the Social Welfare Department is to be established, the manner in which the salary-grant is to be made and the procedure that is to be followed with reference to the Government orders. Infact, the Government orders and the Circular referred to as produced along with the additional affidavit filed in this petition is also to the same effect. 6. In so far as that aspect of the matter, there can be no dispute with regard to the position that if the establishment of a Hostel is to be made in such a manner, the procedure required under law is to be followed and the grant is thereafter to be made in that manner. However, for the present consideration, what is also to be kept in view is that the case of Respondents No. 1 to 6 herein was not the matter of consideration in the said writ petition. If that be the position, when a dispute inter se between the parties had arisen before the Labour Court at the first instance and a consideration on that aspect of the matter was made by the Labour Court before the right as claimed by the Respondents No. 1 to 6 herein was decided, the consideration, as made therein would certainly remain relevant for the limited aspect of the matter to come to a conclusion as to whether the amount ordered be paid is justified or not? It is no doubt true that in the said proceedings also, the evidence as tendered by MW-1 was taken into consideration with regard to the manner in which the Hostel is to be established and to be run. 7. It is no doubt true that in the said proceedings also, the evidence as tendered by MW-1 was taken into consideration with regard to the manner in which the Hostel is to be established and to be run. 7. Further, while accepting the case of the Respondents No. 1 to 6, the Labour Court has made detailed reference to the documents, which were relied on behalf of the workmen at Exs. W1 to W4. The reference as made would indicate that the said documents were the sanction orders/proceedings, which had been made whereunder the sanction of the amount indicated therein was made in respect of the Hostel run by the Respondents No. 7 and 8 and in that light, the Labour Court having taken note of the said documents had accepted the case as put-forth by the workmen to claim that they were working in the Hostel being run by the Respondents No. 7 and 8 and they had been removed despite having worked for more than 240 days and as such, the order or reinstatement was granted. 8. It is no doubt true that in the said case, Issues No. 2 and 3 were framed to find out as to whether the relief, if any, is to be granted against the petitioners herein who were Second Party Nos. 2 and 3 in the said proceedings. To that extent, the Labour Court has ultimately rejected the claim petition as against the Second Party Nos. 2 and 3 who are the petitioners herein. Though such conclusion is reached by the Labour Court, the reason for doing so is also found in the reasoning adopted by the Labour Court in as much as the reinstatement ordered is to be implemented by the Respondents No. 7 and 8 and therefore, to that extent, the relief against the Respondents No. 7 and 8 is granted and the claim petition has been rejected against the petitioners. In that light, what is to be noticed is that while determining the right of Respondents No. 1 to 6, in the presence of the petitioners herein, the Labour Court had relied upon the documents at Exs. W1 to W4 to take note of the sanction orders/resolution. The same would have to be considered as a finding rendered against the petitioners to that extent. W1 to W4 to take note of the sanction orders/resolution. The same would have to be considered as a finding rendered against the petitioners to that extent. If at all, the petitioners had any grievance, the said award was required to be assailed. When that has not been done and in that light, when the Labour Court has thereafter entertained the petition under Section 33(C)(2) and quantified the amount that is payable and to that extent, an observation is made that such payment is to be made after receipt of grants, the petitioners at this stage cannot therefore put-forth any grievance on that aspect of the matter. 9. While taking note of this aspect, what is also to be kept in view is the order dated 20.09.2006 passed in W.P. No. 17591/2004 wherein the contention put-forth on behalf of the petitioners herein who are the respondents therein to deny payment to be made on behalf of the Respondents No. 7 and 8 herein was that the Petitioners therein were not the employees admitted to grant. This Court had held that such contention cannot be accepted and a direction had been issued to pay the amount. Therefore, in so far as the amount as quantified through the order dated 08.11.2012 and an observation therein that the amount would be paid after the grant is made, the petitioners cannot assail the said order at this point, since the main award of the Labour Court had not been assailed. If at all the contention of the petitioners is that the Hostel run by the Respondents No. 7 and 8 is not authorized by the Social Welfare Department or the grants are not appropriately granted, for the future the petitioners in any event would have the liberty to proceed against Respondents No. 7 and 8 in accordance with law on that aspect of the matter. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the order impugned herein dated 08.11.2012 passed in Application No. 4/2011. The petition, accordingly is disposed of as being devoid of merits. Disposed off.