SHIV NATH SAO Vs. PRESIDING OFFICE LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition arise from the direction given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India, (1996) 4 SCC 750, and in particular relevant direction in paragraph 28(9)(d) which is material for the determination of the present writ petition and reads as follows:- (d) The workman employed in the industries which fail to relocate and the workmen who are not willing to shift along with the relocated industries, shall be deemed to have been retrenched with effect from 30-11-1996 provided they have been in continuous service (as defined in Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947) for not less than one year in the industries concerned before the said date. They shall be paid compensation in terms of Section 25-F(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. These workmen shall also be paid, in addition, one year's wages as additional compensation.

(2.) It is not in dispute that by a subsequent order in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India, reported as 1997(1) SCALE 16, this direction of the one year's wages as additional compensation was increased to six years' wages as additional compensation. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows:-

(3.) On 8th December, 2000, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to pass the following order in I.A. No. 1191 in WP(C) No. 4677/1985 moved by the workmen i.e. the petitioners employed by respondent No. 2 Hindustan Vegetables Oils Corporation which led to proceedings before the Labour Court under Section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') culminating in the present writ petition :- Application is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to workmen to move an application under Section 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act.?