Judgment A.P. Ravani, CJ.-On January 10, 1983, JK Synthetics Ltd. declared lay off in all its four Plants at Kota. Almost simultaneously the Company retrenched 2367 workmen engaged therein. The roots of this litigation are in the aforesaid events. The principal question which has surfaced for determination by the Court is - Has the Industrial Tribunal jurisdiction to raise and adjudicate issue regarding ‘closure’ of a part of a plant in absence of any point of dispute in this behalf having been referred to it. This and other related questions are required to be examined and answered by the Court in these matters. 2. All these matters pertain to the industrial disputes which arose between J.K. Synthetics Ltd., Kota (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Company’) and its workmen. At the request and with the consent of the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties, all these matters have been heard together and they are being disposed of by this common Judgment and order. Factual background 3. The company was incorporated as an investment company sometime in May 1953. It started manufacturing operations at Kota in Rajasthan in March 1962 by commencing its Nylon Plant. It has three other Plants viz. Tyre Cord Plant, Synthetic Staple Fibre Plant and Acrylic Plant, at Kota. It has a cement complex in District Chittorgarh and it has also engineering facilities at Calcutta, Kanpur and Dadri. All these matters are in relation to the four plants at Kota. The total strength of workmen employed in these plants, as in December 1982 was as follows: Nam of the Plantl Division Total No. of permanent workmen employed 1 . Nylon PlantlDivs. engaged in POY/HOY 2209 Yarn Process Nylon Plant/Divs. 1164 (engaged in texturising, crimping and other process) 2. Tyre Cord Plant/Division 660 3. Synthetic Staple Fibre Plant/Division 703 4. Acrylic Plant/Division 527 Total 5263 Nylon Plant of the Company was started in the year 1962 and it is the oldest Plant. The other plants viz. Tyre Cord Plant and Synthetic Staple Fibre Plant were started in the year 1971. In the year 1980, the company started fourth plant called Acrylic plant. 4. On January 10, 1983, the company declared lay off in all the four Plants at Kota on the ground that 100% power cut was declared by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board on January 9, 1983. In the year 1980, the company started fourth plant called Acrylic plant. 4. On January 10, 1983, the company declared lay off in all the four Plants at Kota on the ground that 100% power cut was declared by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board on January 9, 1983. The lay off was lifted in phases commencing from February 6, 1983 to February 17, 1983. Immediately after declaration of lay off by notices dated January 15, 1983 and January 17, 1983 services of 2367 workmen were terminated as per the details herein below: .a. Nylon Plant/Division 1878 .b. Nylon Tyre Cord Plant/Division 148 .c. Synthetic Staple Fibre Plant 251 .d. Acrylic Fibre Plant /Division 90 Total 2367 Thus, services of around 45% of the total work force were terminated as and by way of retrenchment. As a mark of protest and in order to show resentment against the action of mass retrenchment, the workmen did not join duty from February 17, 1983 even after the lay off was lifted by the company. 5. By January 21, 1983 i.e. after effecting retrenchment, the company informed the secre-tary, Labour Department, State Government of Rajasthan about the action of retrenchment of workmen. It was inter alia stated that the information was given under Section 25-F (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The company stated reasons for retrenchment in Annexure-A to the letter. It gave details with regard to each plant. In short, as regards Nylon Plant, it submitted that the company had decided to discontinue the processes of crimping, twisting, texturing, draw texturising, dyeing, coning and their inter-connected processes, as they had become unremu-nerative. Therefore 1149 workmen of Nylon Plant were rendered surplus and were required to be retrenched. As regards other Plants also the company gave details about the financial position and stated that in the interest of continuity of business, it had decided to effect economy in its operations. Therefore, it has become necessary to retrench the services of the surplus work force. In Annexure -B to the letter, the Company gave particulars of the workmen who were retrenched. 5. Therefore, it has become necessary to retrench the services of the surplus work force. In Annexure -B to the letter, the Company gave particulars of the workmen who were retrenched. 5. (A) On receipt of the letter, the Labour Commissioner, cum Deputy Secretary to the Government by letter dated January 25, 1983 called upon the Company to appear before him and explain the following points: Why the procedure detailed under Section 25N (c) of Chapter V-B of the Act, was not adopted before resorting to the retrenchments. Furnish the detailed information justifying the causes mentioned in Annexure-A to the letter of the company dated January 21, 1983. 6. The company submitted reply vide its letter dated February 1, 1983. It stated that as per legal advice it had been advised that Section 25-N of the Act was unconstitutional. It was so declared by the Madras High Court. It further stated that by serving notice under Section 25-F of the Act read with Rule 76 of the Rajasthan Industrial disputes Rules, 1958 (for short ‘the Rules of 1958’), it had substantially complied with the provisions of law. The company referred to each of its four plants separately and gave details with regard to the competition faced in the market. It gave details regarding demand and supply position as well as projected demand and supply of the articles manufactured by it. In short, the stand of the company was that on account of fierce competition and due to losses suffered by it and in the interest of continuity of business, it has effected retrenchment on mass scale. .7. The Rajasthan Trade Union Kendra (hereinafter referred to as ‘the RTUK’) which represented a section of workmen, filed SB Civil Writ Petition No. 213/1983 in this Court on January 31, 1983. The State Government of Rajasthan and the Labour Commissioner, were joined as respondents No. 1 and 2. The Company was joined as respondent No. 3. The RTUK produced retrenchment notice/order published in newspaper called ‘Adhikar’ dated January 20, 1983 and January 22, 1983. As stated therein, the retrenchment had become effective from January 17, 1983 and January 19, 1983. The RTUK prayed that the notice of retrenchment be declared illegal and void. The Company was joined as respondent No. 3. The RTUK produced retrenchment notice/order published in newspaper called ‘Adhikar’ dated January 20, 1983 and January 22, 1983. As stated therein, the retrenchment had become effective from January 17, 1983 and January 19, 1983. The RTUK prayed that the notice of retrenchment be declared illegal and void. It further prayed that the workmen be declared to be continuously in service and respondent No. 3 be directed to pay full back wages, allowances and other benefits as if services of workmen were never terminated. The RTUK also prayed that the company be directed to comply with the provisions of Section 25-N of the Act. Section 25-N of the Act lays down certain conditions precedent before retrenching any workman. The RTUK also prayed for a direction to prosecute the company for breach of certain mandatory provisions of the Act. The RTUK also prayed that the company be directed to make payment of arrears of .accumulated wages and other benefits to which the workmen would have been entitled had their services been not terminated. 8. Asstated above, Writ Petition No. 213/1983 was filed by RTUK on January 31, 1983. The Labour Commissioner issued show cause notice to the President of the Company (Shri Sita Sing-hania) (sic) and to the Executive Director of the Company (Shri S.P. Agrawal) on February 19, 1983. In the show cause notice it was stated that after examination of the record and after preliminary enquiry, the Government had come to the conclusion that the company had retrenched its workmen by notice dated January 15/17, 1983 on mass scale without valid grounds and in violation of the provisions of Section 25-N(1) (c) of the Act and also without complying with the provisions of Rules 76, 76-A and 77 of the rules 1958. Therefore, they were called upon to show cause as to why they should not be prosecuted for the retrenchment of workmen and for the offences punishable under Section 25-0 read with Section 34 of the Act. They were required to submit reply within ten days of the receipt of the notice. Instead of filing reply to the notice, the company filed Writ Petition No. 409/1983 on February 28, 1983. The Company prayed that the provisions of Section 25-M, 25-N and 25-0 of the Act be declared unconstitutional and void. They were required to submit reply within ten days of the receipt of the notice. Instead of filing reply to the notice, the company filed Writ Petition No. 409/1983 on February 28, 1983. The Company prayed that the provisions of Section 25-M, 25-N and 25-0 of the Act be declared unconstitutional and void. It prayed for a direction to the respondents not to enforce the aforesaid provisions. It also prayed to quash and set aside show cause notice dated February 19, 1983 and for a direction to concerned respondents to withdraw or cancel the show cause notice. 9. On March 7, 1983the High Court (S.N. Bhargava, J as he then was) admitted the Petition and granted interim relief prohibiting the Government from proceeding further in the matter. On the other hand on March 7, 1983 itself , in the petition filed by RTUK the Court granted interim relief and restrained the Company from making further retrenchment of the workmen. The Writ Petition was filed by the RTUK mainly on the ground that the company has contravened the provisions of Section 25-N of the Act inasmuch as it had effected retrenchment of workmen on mass scale without previous notice to the Government and without complying with other pre-conditions as laid down in Section 25-N of the Act. The learned Single Judge referred the matter to Full Bench. Ultimately both the matters were ordered to be placed before Full Bench. Reference to Industrial Tribunal .10. When the aforesaid petitions were pending, the State Government of Rajasthan in exercise of its powers under Section 10-H of the Act, ordered to make reference of the dispute to Industrial Tribunal. While passing the order of reference the Government took into consideration several events starting from lay off and mass retrenchment of 2367 workmen contrary to past practice and settlement dated September 24, 1982, pendency of writ petitions in the High Court filed by the RTUK and by the Company, the effecting of retrenchment of the workmen without complying with the provisions of Section 25-N of the Act, issuance of show cause notice to the Company by the Government and several other factors. The Government recorded its satisfaction that an industrial dispute existed between the management and the workman about the retrenchment as well as about the work load and assessment of the strength of workers required in the Plants. The Government recorded its satisfaction that an industrial dispute existed between the management and the workman about the retrenchment as well as about the work load and assessment of the strength of workers required in the Plants. The Government recorded its satisfaction that the dispute was not likely to be settled by mutual agreement. It further recorded that if the dispute is continued, industrial peace will be disturbed and prolonged hardships will be caused to a large section of the community. Therefore, to defuse the discontentment and tension, Preferred the following matters for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur. 1. Whether the lay off in 4 Divisions of J.K. Synthetics Ltd., Kota (viz. J.K. Synthetics , J.K. Acrylics, J.K. Staple & Tows and J.K. Tyre Cord, Kota) from January 10, 1983 to February 17, 1983 was legal and justified and if not, to what relief the workers are entitled? 2. Whether the retrenchment in 4 Divisions of J.K. Synthetics (viz J.K. Synthetics, J.K. Acrylics, J.K. Staple & Tows and J.K. Tyre Cord, Kota) was justified and if not, to what relief the workers are entitled? 3. Whether in case the provisions of Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are held to be unconstitutional by the Hon’ble High Court in the Writ Petitions (213/1983 and 409/1983) the retrenchment was in accordance with other provisions of the said Act, and to what relief workers are entitled? 4. Whether non-resumption of duty by unretrenched workmen engaged in the four Divisions of J.K.Synthetics Ltd.. Kota (viz., J.K.Synthetics. J.K. Acrylics, J.K. Staple & Tows and J.K. Tyre Cord, Kota) was justified and whether the workmen are entitled to any relief for this period from February 17, 1983 till they resumed duty”. The Progress of Writ Petitions 11. As indicated hereinabove, both the writ petitions were ordered to be placed before Full Bench. They were heard and decided on October 19, 1983. The Full bench (G.M. Lodha J as he then was, Dr. K.S. Sidhu J. and G.K. Sharma, J) by majority (Dr. K.S. Sidhu, J. differing) held that the provisions of Section 25-N (1) (c) read with Sub-section (2) of Section 25-N and Section 25-Q of the Act, were unconstituonal. The Full Bench further prohibited the State Government from enforcing the aforesaid provisions against the company. The Writ Petition filed by RTUK (213.83) was ordered to be dismissed. 12. K.S. Sidhu, J. differing) held that the provisions of Section 25-N (1) (c) read with Sub-section (2) of Section 25-N and Section 25-Q of the Act, were unconstituonal. The Full Bench further prohibited the State Government from enforcing the aforesaid provisions against the company. The Writ Petition filed by RTUK (213.83) was ordered to be dismissed. 12. The RTUK filed Civil Appeal No. 4/1984 before the Supreme Court against the Judgment and order passed by the Full Bench. The Supreme Court granted special leave and admitted the Appeal as per order dated January 2, 1984. The Supreme Court in the order inter alia observed that the company had already retrenched more than two thousand workmer without complying with the requirements of Section 25-N (1) (c) of the Act. The Supreme Court directed that pending disposal of the Appeal, the Company should pay one third of the total wages (inclusive of DA etc.) to the workmen affected by the retrenchment as and by way of subsistence allowance subject to future adjustment, commencing from the date of retrenchment till the final disposal of Appeal. The Supreme Court also directed to make payment ol the arrears on the aforesaid basis to the concerned retrenched workmen within two months from the date of order. Further progress of the reference before Tribunal. 13. During the pendency of the Civil Appeal before the Supreme Court, proceeding before the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur in IT No. 81 /1983 proceeded further. On March 22, 1985 the company and its workmen had entered into a settlement. This was produced before the Tribunal. The Tribunal did not accept the settlement. It directed to take voting of all the workmen to ascertain their wishes as regards the acceptance or rejection of the settlement. Totally 4844 workmen were eligible to vote. Out of them 3946 workmen exercised their vote, 102 votes were rejected as invalid. Thus total valid votes were 3844. Majority of the workmen i.e. 1994 voted against the settlement. They did not accept the settlement. On the other hand, 1850 workmen voted in favour of the settlement. They were agreeable to accept the settlement. 14. TheTribunal pronounced its finding on each issue on May 7, 1985. Thereafter it finally passed the award on May 14, 1985. The Tribunal held that the lay-off was legal and valid. It declared the strike as unlawful and unjustified. On the other hand, 1850 workmen voted in favour of the settlement. They were agreeable to accept the settlement. 14. TheTribunal pronounced its finding on each issue on May 7, 1985. Thereafter it finally passed the award on May 14, 1985. The Tribunal held that the lay-off was legal and valid. It declared the strike as unlawful and unjustified. As regards 1201 workmen, it held that the retrenchment was in contravention of the provisions of the Act. They were ordered to be reinstated in service with 40% to 45% of back wages. As regards 1166 workmen, the Tribunal held that they belonged to Textile Section of the Company which was closed down. Therefore, in relation to them, there was no industrial dispute. Hence no question of giving any direction in relation to them arose. The Tribunal opined that majority of the workmen had voted against the settlement even so it could look into the settlement for the purposes of granting relief The Tribunal held that the findings given by it on different issues were carried to the logical end, large section of the workmen, numbering 1166, would be deprived of any relief Therefore, it moulded the relief and directed to award cash compensation to 1166 workmen which vary from person to person. It was mainly in terms of the settlement dated March 22, 1985. The detailed directions given by the Tribunal are contained in para 133 of the award. As regards the period of strike, the Tribunal directed that the period commencing from February 17, 1983 upto August 1983, when the work was resumed, ex-gratia amount equivalent to 50% of the wages was ordered to be paid considering as if they had worked and they had not been on strike. The Tribunal issued certain general directions which are contained in paras 141 to 146 of the award. In substance, the Tribunal passed the award in terms of the settlement. However, the Tribunal made it clear that it was passing the award in exercise of its own power and not as per the terms of the settlement inasmuch as majority of the workmen were against the settlement and the Tribunal had refused to pass the award in terms of the settlement. On the aforesaid lines, the final award was passed by the Tribunal on May 14, 1985. Civil Appeal No. 4165/1985 to Supreme Court by Workmen 15. On the aforesaid lines, the final award was passed by the Tribunal on May 14, 1985. Civil Appeal No. 4165/1985 to Supreme Court by Workmen 15. The Workmen felt aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, RTUK challenged the legality and validity of the same before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted special leave petition and admitted Civil Appeal No. 4165/1985. During the pendency of the Civil Appeal No. 4/1984 (Which was filed by the RTUK against the Full Bench decisions of this Court) and Civil Appeal No. 4 165/1985, an application was made for modification and/or for setting aside of the earlier order dated January 2, 1984 passed by the Supreme Court. By this order the Supreme Court had directed the Company to make payment of one- third of the wages to the workmen affected by the retrenchment. The Supreme Court rejected the application as per order dated September 11, 1985 with certain clarification. Final decision by Supreme Court in CA Nos. 4/84 and 4165/85 .16. Both the Civil Appeals No. 4/1984 and 4 165/1985 were decided by the Supreme Court by a common Judgment and order dated March 17, 1993. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Workmen of Meenakshi Mills Ltd & Ors. vs. Meenakshi Mills Ltd. & Anr. reported in (1992-II-LLJ-294) the Supreme Court held that the Judgment of the Full Bench of Rajasthan High Court declaring the provisions of Section 25-N of the Act as unconstitutional, was required to be upset. Thus, the Supreme Court allowed the Civil Appeal No. 4/1984 filed by the RTUK. The Supreme Court directed to reject the Writ Petition No. 409/1983 filed by the Company. The Supreme Court further directed to remand the Writ Petition No. 213/1983 filed by the RTUK to the High Court. As regards Civil Appeal No. 4165/1985 filed by the RTUK against the award passed by the Tribunal, the Supreme Court directed that it may also be remanded to the High Court and .ordered to treat the same as Petition under Articles 226/227 of the constitution and register the same afresh. Thus, in substance both the matters i.e. Writ Petition No. 213/1983 filed by the RTUK and Civil Appeal No. 4 165/1985 filed by the RTUK against the award passed by the Tribunal, stood remanded to the High Court. Thus, in substance both the matters i.e. Writ Petition No. 213/1983 filed by the RTUK and Civil Appeal No. 4 165/1985 filed by the RTUK against the award passed by the Tribunal, stood remanded to the High Court. Civil Appeal No. 4 165/1985 was registered as Writ Petition No. 5 106/1993 by the High Court. The Supreme Court in the order inter alia observed that the claim of workmen based on the provisions of Section 25-N of the Act, was not examined and pronounced upon by the High Court. Therefore, it would need remand to decide the Writ Petition No. 213/1983 on its own merits. Before the Supreme Court on behalf of the company, it was conceded that in respect of 1201 workmen the direction given by the Tribunal was of re-employment. However it was to be construed as reinstatement in service with back wages as ordered by the Tribunal. The Supreme Court thought it proper to collate both the litigations i.e. Writ Petition No. 213/1983 and Civil Appeal No. 4165/1985 arising out of the award passed by the Tribunal. Hence the Supreme Court directed remand of both the matters to the High Court. This is how both the matters stood remanded to the High Court as per the order passed by the Supreme Court on March 17, 1993. Civil Appeal No. 4165/1985 was registered by the High Court as Writ Petition No. 5106/1993. SB Civil Writ Petition No. 6248/1993 filed by the Company 17. On August 25, 1993, the Company filed Writ Petition No. 6248/1993 and challenged legality of the award passed by the Tribunal on May 14, 1985. The company contended that the order of the Tribunal dated April 5, 1985 directing to take secret ballots as regards settlement dated March 22, 1985, be declared illegal and void. The Company also prayed that the order dated May 14, 1985 passed by the Tribunal holding that it could look into the settlement for the purposes of moulding the relief and if necessary it would examine the settlement when finding on various issues were given, be declared illegal and void. The Company also prayed that the order dated May 14, 1985 passed by the Tribunal holding that it could look into the settlement for the purposes of moulding the relief and if necessary it would examine the settlement when finding on various issues were given, be declared illegal and void. The Company further prayed that the award of Tribunal dated May 14, 1985 be set aside and the same may be passed or strictly modified in terms of the settlement dated March 22, 1985, entered into between the parties in substance, the petition is filed by the company contending that the Tribunal could pass award only in terms of the settlement. Even though the award may be substantially in terms of the settlement since it was not passed in terms of settlement the company has filed the Petition challenging the legality and validity of the award and praying for the reliefs as stated above. Zigzag movement of the Petitions before High Court after remand from the Supreme Court 18. After remand of the aforesaid matters, the Registrar obtained orders from the learned Chief Justice for placing the matters before the appropriate Court. Writ Petition No. 409/1983 filed by the Company, stood rejected as per the direction of the Supreme Court. Writ Petitions No. 213/1983 and 5 106/1993 (No. given by the High Court to CA No. 4165/1985 of the Supreme Court), were required to be, heard by the High Court as per order of the Supreme Court. The learned chief Justice ordered the matters to be placed before Division Bench. However, it was contended on behalf of the Company that the matters were required to be placed before the Single Bench because after remand of the matters, no question regarding determination of constitutional validity of any provision of the statute, remained pending. To similar effect, application was also filed by another Union. This objection was raised before the Division Bench but the Division Bench did not pass, order. Request was made to the learned Chief Justice who as per order dated September 15, 1993 directed the matter to be placed before Single Bench. Again by another order, the learned Chief Justice passed a specific order directing the matter to be placed before V.K. Singhal, J. This is how both the matters were placed before learned Single Judge (V.K. Singhal, J) of this Court. 19. Again by another order, the learned Chief Justice passed a specific order directing the matter to be placed before V.K. Singhal, J. This is how both the matters were placed before learned Single Judge (V.K. Singhal, J) of this Court. 19. TheRTUK filed DB Special Appeal (Writ) No. 605/1993 and challenged the legality and validity of the order passed by the learned Chief Justice directing to place the matters before Single Bench. It was contended that once the matters were ordered to be placed before Division Bench, unless the Division bench releases the matters and passes any judicial order, it could not have been withdrawn from it and ordered to be placed before Single Bench. The Division Bench of this Court heard the Special Appeal and rejected the same as being not maintainable by order dated December 1, 1993. Thereafter the matters were heard and decided by learned Single Judge (V.K. Singhal, J.) on March 25, 1994. .20. By common Judgment and order dated March 25, 1994 the learned Single Judge decided the Writ Petitions Nos. 213/1983 and 5106/1993. The learned Single Judge over-ruled the objections raised on behalf of the Company as regards the maintainability of Writ Petitions and as regards the locus standi of Union to file the writ petitions. The learned Single Judge upheld the findings of Tribunal with regard to the lay-off and as regards strike period. The learned Single Judge rejected the prayer made by the RTUK for prosecution of the Company. The learned Single Judge further directed that 1201 workmen, who were ordered to be reinstated in service with 40% to 45% of back wages, were entitled to full back wages. This direction was given in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Meenakshi Mills Ltd. (Supra). The learned Single Judge up-held the finding of the Tribunal as regards the closure of Nylon Plant so-called Textile section of the Company. Therefore, the learned Single Judge held that the discussion with regard to the applicability of Section 25-FFA of the Act, was only academic. The learned Single Judge directed that no question of giving any relief for the .alleged non-compliance of Section 9-A of the Act arose. Thus, both the. Writ Petitions (213/1983 and 5106/1993) were decided by the learned Single Judge as per the Judgment and order elated March 25, 1994. Particulars regarding different Special Appeals. 21. The learned Single Judge directed that no question of giving any relief for the .alleged non-compliance of Section 9-A of the Act arose. Thus, both the. Writ Petitions (213/1983 and 5106/1993) were decided by the learned Single Judge as per the Judgment and order elated March 25, 1994. Particulars regarding different Special Appeals. 21. (i) Appeal No. 335/1994 is filed by the Company against the Judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 213/1983 filed by the RTUK. The Company had felt aggrieved by the order of learned Single Judge as regards direction to pay full back wages to 1201 workmen instead of 40% to 45% (the learned Single Judge has considered that the Tribunal has awarded 50% of back wages). However, the prayer made by the Company is that the entire Judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge be quashed and set aside. (ii) Appeal No. 338/1994 is filed by the Company against the Judgment and order passed in Writ Petition No. 5 106/1993 filed by the RTUK. It may be noted that RTUK had filed Civil Appeal No. 4165/1985 before the Supreme Court challenging the award dated May 14, 1985 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur. The Supreme Court by order dated March 17, 1993 remanded the matter to the High -Court and directed to treat the same as Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The said proceeding was registered as Writ Petition No. 5 106/1993. The Judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is common but the Company has filed two separate appeals. The prayer made in the Appeal is that the Judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 5106/1993 be reversed and set aside. (iii) & (iv) Appeals No. 337/1994 and 179/1995 have been filed by the RTUK against the common Judgment and order dated March 25, 1994 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petitions No. 213/1983 and 5106/1993. In both the appeals the prayer made is substantially the same. However, to avoid technical objections, two appeals appear to have been filed. The prayer made in these appeals is that the entire work force of 2367 workmen be ordered to be reinstated by the company with full back wages and continuity of service. In both the appeals the prayer made is substantially the same. However, to avoid technical objections, two appeals appear to have been filed. The prayer made in these appeals is that the entire work force of 2367 workmen be ordered to be reinstated by the company with full back wages and continuity of service. It also prayed that the lay off declared by the Company from January 10, 1983 to February 17, 1983 be declared illegal and the company be directed to make payment of full back wages to the affected workmen from the period of so-called lay-off It is also prayed that the strike of the un- retrenched workmen be declared legal and justified and the Company be directed to make full payment of the period of strike. It is further prayed that the State Government and the Labour Commissioner be directed to prosecute the company and its officers. .(v) AppealNo. 339/1994 is filed by the J.K. Synthetics Mazdoor Union (affiliated to CITU). The Appeal is directed against the Judgment and order passed in Writ Petition Nos. 213/1983 and 5 106/1993. It is prayed that the Judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge be quashed and set aside insofar as it affirmed the finding with regard to closure of so-called Textile section and held that the termination of services of 1166 workmen of so-called Textile Section was on account of closure. It is also prayed that the finding with regard to strike being unjustified and illegal be also reversed and set aside. .(vi) Writ Petition No. 6248/1993 filed by the Company. Particulars of this Petition have been given hereinabove in para 17. Writ Petition No. 6248/1993 22. This petition has been filed by the company on August 25, 1993, It was a Single Bench matter. However, on May 18, 1995 joint request was made on behalf of the Company as well as on behalf of the Union to tag on this matter with special Appeals No. 335/1994, 338/1994, 337/1994, 179/1995 and 339/1994 and to place the same before the Division Bench. The request was accepted and order was passed accordingly on administrative side on May 18, 1995. On the same day it was placed before the Division Bench. That is how the mater is placed before the Divisional Bench and it was heard together with the aforesaid appeals. The request was accepted and order was passed accordingly on administrative side on May 18, 1995. On the same day it was placed before the Division Bench. That is how the mater is placed before the Divisional Bench and it was heard together with the aforesaid appeals. In this Petition, Company has challenged the legality and validity of the award dated May 14, 1985 passed by the Tribunal in IT No. 81/1983. Objection has been raised on behalf of the RTUK that the Company is estopped from challenging the legality and validity of theaward. it is submitted that the stand of the company before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4 165/1985 was that it had accepted the award. Therefore, now it cannot be permitted to challenge the legality and validity of the award. It is further submitted that the Petition suffers from vice of delay, laches and acquiescence. The award passed on May 14, 1985 is being challenged by filing Petition on August 25, 1993 i.e. after an inordinate delay of more than eight years. It is further submitted that the Petition suffers from the vice of suppression of material facts, it was submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in different affidavits filed on September 6, 1985 and again in February 1993 that the Company had accepted the award. This fact has been suppressed in this Petition. True and correct position has not been brought to the notice of the Court. Had this fact been brought to the notice of the Court and complete picture been placed, in all probabilities the Court would not have admitted the Petition at all. On the aforesaid grounds it is submitted that the Petition is required to be rejected. 23. In view of the aforesaid submission, specific question was put to the learned Counsel appearing for the Company as regards the statement made before the Supreme Court in affidavit dated September 6, 1985 sworn by Shri Ashok Sing-hania, Vice President of the Company and again in the affidavit of Shri Brijesh Bhargava, Manager (Legal) which was filed some time in February 1993. The learned Counsel appearing for the company fairly conceded that the Company did file the aforesaid affidavits. He further conceded that before the Hon’ ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid affidavits statements were made on behalf of the Company that it had accepted the award. The learned Counsel appearing for the company fairly conceded that the Company did file the aforesaid affidavits. He further conceded that before the Hon’ ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid affidavits statements were made on behalf of the Company that it had accepted the award. However it is submitted that there was no intention on the part of the company to withhold or keep back any material from the Court. Therefore, it is submitted that the Petition may not be rejected on the ground of suppression of