ORDER : P.B. Sawant, J. We have heard the parties. There is no dispute that the appellant-Mills was declared sick on 27-1-1977 and ultimately it was closed on 7-11-1988. Thereafter, the BIFR framed a scheme for reconstituting the company on 6-7-1993. An appeal filed by the Union against the said scheme was dismissed on 30-9-1993. It appears that against the said dismissal, Shri S.K. Sharma, an employee of the company has preferred a special leave petition in this Court which is pending and in which notice has been issued by us today. That has nothing to do with the matters in issue before us. 2. In view of the sickness of the Mills and the reconstitution of the company, there was an agreement arrived at between the Mill Mazdoor Sangh, i.e., the Union representing the workmen of the Mills and the appellant-Mills on 21-10-1992, where under the Tribunal’s award impugned in the present appeal by the Mills was modified by consent. It is not necessary to go into the details of that agreement. Suffice it to say that what was broadly agreed upon between the parties was that as far as the regular employees are concerned, they would be entitled to all the arrears of wages including dearness allowance they were drawing on the date of the closure of the Mills, viz., 7-11-1982. The arrears of wages were to be calculated and paid till 21-10-1992 which is the date of the agreement. The workers were further to be paid gratuity and retrenchment compensation on the basis of basic wage plus dearness allowance, also calculated till 21-10-1992. 3. There is no dispute that out of the 56 members of the staff which included 5 technicians and 51 clerks, five technicians have been retained and 51 clerks have been retrenched. Out of 51 clerks, 41 have accepted the agreement. Only 10 of them have refused to accept the agreement. Before us, they are represented by Shri S.K. Sharma who appears through his learned counsel. It was pointed out by the learned counsel that the wages and dearness allowance paid to the clerical staff have remained constant since 1962 and the impugned award given by the Tribunal had enhanced them. The purport of the agreement in question is to deny the employees the benefit of the improved pay scales and the dearness allowance. It was pointed out by the learned counsel that the wages and dearness allowance paid to the clerical staff have remained constant since 1962 and the impugned award given by the Tribunal had enhanced them. The purport of the agreement in question is to deny the employees the benefit of the improved pay scales and the dearness allowance. He, therefore, urged that the clerks concerned should be paid at least the wages and the dearness allowance as awarded by the Tribunal. We are afraid that this contention forgets the fact that the appellant-Mills which was declared as a sick unit on 27-8-1987 has since closed down and the BIFR had to frame a scheme for reconstituting the company. The appellant authority has placed its seal on the said scheme. In the absence of the agreement in question, the employees represented by the learned counsel would have been required to stand in queue for their dues even under the old scales of pay and dearness allowance. It is not known what percentage of their dues they would have secured by this process and when. We may also take note of the fact that the Union has been in the field for several years and knows where the interests of the workers lie. They would not have reached the agreement in question if it was not in the interests of the employees. There is no reason to believe that the Union has sacrificed the interests of the workmen by entering into the said agreement. In view of this and in view of the further fact that an overwhelming majority of the employees has accepted the agreement, we are of the view that the agreement in question should be accepted as a reasonable one. In the circumstances, we allow the appeal and modify the impugned award in terms of the agreement arrived at between the appellant-Mills and the Mill Mazdoor Sangh on 21-10-1992. 4. In view of the order passed by this Court on 10-9-1984 which directed the appellant-Mills to pay fees of the lawyer engaged by the employees, we direct the appellant-Mills to pay the respondent’s lawyer a sum of Rs 5000 as his fees. SLP (C) No. 6880 of 1981 5. In view of the order in the above appeal, the special leave petition stands disposed of.