ORDER 1. Present petition has been preferred by the petitioner Gwalior Development Authority against the order dated 1.9.2017 (Annexure P-1) passed by Tahsildar, Tahsil Gwalior whereby direction has been given to the Chief Executive Officer of Gwalior Development Authority for deposit amount of Rs.7,55,797/- before the Court of Tahsildar else threatened to proceed with the attachment proceedings. 2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that respondent No.1 has filed a case under section 108 of M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1960') for arrears of salary because of classification. The labour Court vide order dated 8.3.2016 allowed the application preferred by respondent No.1 and directed the present petitioner who happens to be employer of respondent No.1 to pay amount as mentioned above as arrears of salary. Matter is pending since then for payment. 3. It appears from the facts that the petitioner Gwalior Development Authority preferred appeal under section 67 of the Act of 1960 before the Industrial Tribunal and as per the instructions of the petitioner, said appeal is still pending consideration. Meanwhile, respondent No.1 preferred a writ petition before this Court for execution of the order passed by the Labour Court and this Court in Writ Petition No.67/2017 vide order dated 6.1.2017 directed Collector, Gwalior to do the needful for ensuring implementation of RRC as per law. The said order persuaded Tahsildar to initiate RRC proceedings against the petitioner and result is passing of order dated 1.9.2017 (Annexure P-1). 4. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, once the appeal is pending before the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication in respect of the claim of respondent No.1 whereby challenge to the order dated 8.3.2016 (by the Labout Court) is made then Tahsildar proceeded on extraneous consideration and caused arbitrariness. According to him, quantum has still not been finalized, therefore, Tahsildar could not have issued such order. It is also submitted that respondent No.1 is not interested in Appeal proceedings and dilly dallying the matter. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and submits that petitioner is not paying any amount to respondent No.1 and appeal of the petitioner is mainly on the ground that respondent No.1 did not work between the period of 28.12.2002 to 29.7.2004 and therefore, no arrears of salary for the said period can be given to respondent No.1. His anxiety is that respondent No.1 be given arrears of salary while deducting the said period because if petitioner is ready to immediately disburse the arrears of salary as per the order of Labour Court, then he is ready to give up the claim in respect of above mentioned period because he is in need of money. He supported the impugned order and submitted that the order passed is in consonance with the order of Labour Court as well as the order dated 6.1.2017 passed by this Court. He prayed for dismissal of petition. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 also supported the arguments advanced by learned counsel for respondent No.1 and prayed for dismissal of writ petition. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto. 8. The Labour Court in the present case while considering the fact situation has passed the order determining the claim of respondent No.1 as proved. The said order is under challenge before Industrial Tribunal. It appears that the petitioner Gwalior Development Authority preferred the appeal mainly challenging the grant of salary between 28.12.2002 to 29.7.2004. 9. Be that as it may, once the appeal is pending then it is imperative for both the parties to appear before the same and give their attendance for conclusion of proceeding at the earliest. Once the claim of respondent No.1 has been adjudicated by the Labour Court then respondent No.1 was right and justified in prosecuting for execution of the order of the Labour Court and, therefore, Tahsildar was also right in his authority for issuance of RRC and impugned order. Therefore, at this juncture no interference can be made in the writ petition preferred by the petitioner. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are advised to appear before the Industrial Court regularly and cooperate for early disposal of the appeal preferred by the petitioner. It is expected from the learned Presiding Officer of Industrial Tribunal that appeal of the petitioner would be decided as expeditiously as possible for giving conclusiveness to the controversy in question. Petition sans merits and is hereby disposed of with the above directions.