JUDGMENT All of them have been heard. The petition needs to be decided at this stage finally because the petitioner has not come with clean hands. Shri Gajankush submitted that the respondents No.1, 2 & 7 did not give the benefit of Textile Workers Rehabilitation Fund Scheme (TWRF) to the employees working in petitioner union. He submitted that the representation of petitioner which was pending before those respondents has been decided with cryptic order and the petitioners have been deprived of the benefit of TWRF scheme which was brought in force since June 1985. Shri Gajankush pointed out the observations made by the Secretary of Labour Department of State of M.P. in his order dated 14.8.1997 wherein the paragraph 12 he pointed out that employees working in petitioner union would be getting the benefit of TWRF scheme. It is the submission of Shri Gajankush further that without giving the benefit of said scheme, the representation of the petitioner has been dismissed by the respondents No.1, 2 & 7 and, therefore, this Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus in favour of the petitioner directing the respondents to do the needful things. Shri E.G. Neema submitted that the scheme by which TWRF was introduced was for the workmen who were not to get any amount in the nature of provident fund, gratuity and other compensation, however, the petitioners have secured the money in respect of the provident fund, gratuity and other benefits. Shri Neema further submitted that said scheme is not applicable at all to the petitioners and hence there is no necessity of issuing any writ as prayed by the petitioner. The scheme on which the petitioners are harping in support has introductory paragraph which reads as follows : INTRODUCTION Para 18.7 of the Textile policy of June, 1985 states as follows: "It is of utmost importance that the interest of the workers who might be displaced by permanent closure of units is safeguarded. For this purpose, Schemes shall be formulated to provide relief for an interim period in addition to the statutory benefits. A Rehabilitation Fund for the workers of the Textile Industry would be created to provide relief to such workers for a limited period. For this purpose, Schemes shall be formulated to provide relief for an interim period in addition to the statutory benefits. A Rehabilitation Fund for the workers of the Textile Industry would be created to provide relief to such workers for a limited period. Such a Fund shall, inter alia, be financed by a suitableness' on the textile industry." Accordingly, the Government of India in September, 1986, published the Textile Workers' Rehabilitation Fund Scheme to provide interim relief to workers rendered unemployed in consequence of the permanent closure/liquidation of the textile units. The Scheme came into force with effect from the 15th September, 1986. The Scheme speaks of eligible workers in which permanent, 'badli' or casual workers, the workers who are continuously working for five years or more on the records of the mills, the workers who are so working on the concerned record of regional provident fund, Commissioner, the persons who are earning a wage equivalent up to Rs. 1600/- per month or less or the workers who were engaged continuously for five years, before the closure, as defined 'continuous service' under section 25(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, would be eligible for the benefit of the Scheme provided the workers were not on illegal strike and the mills closure was not due to the fault on the part of the workmen. The Scheme is also taking care of various facets of closure of the mill. The petitioner who wants to get a relief in the nature of appropriate writ to be issued by the Court in view of Article 226 has to give all necessary details in the writ petition itself and to satisfy the Court that his case falls within the category contemplating by the Statute. In this petition that has not been done. Apart from that a scheme has been brought in existence for the purpose of rehabilitation of the workers who would be suffering on account of closure of unit and would be without payment of money in the nature of benefits. When that happens to be so, Court cannot direct the concerned officer to implement such non statutory scheme unless there are compelling grounds to do so. The Court would be taking into consideration the financial implications of asking the concerned Govt. to implement such scheme and for that purpose the petitioner has to come with all necessary details and with clean hands. The Court would be taking into consideration the financial implications of asking the concerned Govt. to implement such scheme and for that purpose the petitioner has to come with all necessary details and with clean hands. Keeping in view the attitude of dodging the answers to the queries made by the Court which is deprecatable, - this Court has no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the petitioners have not made out a case for getting a relief in the nature of appropriate writ. Thus, the petition stands dismissed.