ORDER : Arijit Pasayat, C.K. Thakker, JJ. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the Union of India. Undisputedly, the public sector undertakings concerned are before BIFR and attempts are being made to explore the possibility of revival of the unit. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that because of Para 13 of the office memorandum dated 19-7-1995, there may be possibility of finding a solution to the controversy about the entitlement. His request was that the petitioners may be permitted to be impleaded in the proceedings before BIFR in order to enable them to place their respective stand before BIFR. The learned counsel for the Union of India submitted that there can be no objection to such a course being adopted. 3. In the circumstances, we direct that in the proceedings pending before BIFR, the petitioners concerned may be impleaded as parties for the purpose of placing their stand on the question of revival of unit and to work out the entitlement claimed on the revival of the unit. It appears that similar course was adopted in SLP (C) No. 16732 of 1997. 4. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. 5. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion about the entitlements claimed by the writ petitioners. WP (C) No. 105 of 2001. 6. The order passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 552 of 2000 shall govern this case also.