JUDGMENT D.N. Patel, J. 1. The present application has been preferred mainly for the reason that there is deliberate breach of order passed by this Court dated 23.08.2002 in C.W.J.C No. 1408 of 1994 (R). 2. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and also heard learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. Having heard learned Counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears: (a) that the respondent No. 4 had preferred an application, to appropriate Government, seeking permission for retrenchment of the workmen under Section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Much time was taken by the sanctioning authority and keeping in mind deeming provision, the retrenchment was presumed to have been given to the management. (b) that by being aggrieved by the order of retrenchment which was brought into effect on various dates and one of such date is 15th December, 1987, an Industrial Dispute was raised by the workmen and a Reference case No. 5 of 1988 was referred to the concerned Industrial Tribunal wherein an order was passed by the Industrial Tribunal on 25th November, 1993, and the Reference Case was dismissed and 'deemed permission' for retrenchment was held as valid. (c) Thereafter, the aggrieved workmen preferred C.W.J.C. No. 1408 of 1994 (R) under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal wherein a deemed permission under Section 25N was assumed by the Industrial Tribunal and the retrenchment was held as legal. (d) that before the order is passed by this Court, a full and final amicable settlement was arrived at between the 71 workmen and the management, out of total 101. Counter affidavit is filed to this effect. This fact was not brought to the notice to this Court while deciding C.W.J.C. No. 1408 of 1994 (R). 4. This Court decided C.W.J.C. No. 1408 of 1994 (R) vide order dated 23rd August, 2002. Paragraph 7 of the judgment reads as under: Mr. Amitabh, Junior counsel to Mr. K.B. Sinha informed this Court that the management has not given any instruction to Mr. Sinha in the matter. 5. It appears that in the aforesaid Writ Petition it was decided that deemed permission for retrenchment under Section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 upheld by Industrial Tribunal was wrong. Amitabh, Junior counsel to Mr. K.B. Sinha informed this Court that the management has not given any instruction to Mr. Sinha in the matter. 5. It appears that in the aforesaid Writ Petition it was decided that deemed permission for retrenchment under Section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 upheld by Industrial Tribunal was wrong. There was mistaken calculation of 60 days and, therefore, retrenchment was held as illegal. And consequently award passed by the Labour Court was quashed and set aside and final direction was given, which reads as under: All the 101 (one hundred one) workmen in question will entitled for consequential benefits including monetary benefit to which they are entitled under the law. The respondent management is directed accordingly. 6. It appears that thereafter Letters patent Appeal was preferred, which was dismissed and thereafter, S.L.P. was as preferred by the management before the Apex Court, which was also dismissed. Thus, the order passed by this Court dated 23rd August, 2002 in C.W.J.C No. 1408 of 1994 (R) attained its finality. 7. As per the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 4 in the present case, there is also amicable settlement between the present petitioner and 71 workmen in February, 1994 onwards and, therefore, they are not entitled to any benefits. The date of settlement is varying from workman to workman Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 has also brought to the notice of this Court that subsequently 30 workmen had preferred the contempt application before this Court being Contempt Case (C) No. 811 of 2003 wherein paragraph No. 4 it has been observed as under: During the pendency of the litigation, 71 workmen out of 101 settled with the Company. However, remaining 30 workmen i.e. the petitioners herein have filed the present contempt petition. 8. Thus cognizance has been taken by the Court while disposing of the Contempt case No. 811 of 2003 vide order dated 12th January, 2007 that there was settlement between 71 workmen out of 101 workmen with the respondent No. 4. 9. The present petitioners had also filed application for joining himself as a party in the aforesaid Contempt Petition through Trade Union, which was not allowed by this Court. Thus the present petitioners were knowing the result of the earlier Contempt Application preferred by 30 workmen. 10. 9. The present petitioners had also filed application for joining himself as a party in the aforesaid Contempt Petition through Trade Union, which was not allowed by this Court. Thus the present petitioners were knowing the result of the earlier Contempt Application preferred by 30 workmen. 10. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons especially that there was a full and final settlement between the present petitioner and respondent No. 4 as stated in Annexure A of the reply filed by the respondent, the present petitioners are not entitled for the benefit. Thus, there is no deliberate breach of the order passed by this Court. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that there is no need of further clarification in the order passed by this Court dated 23rd August, 2002 in C.W.J.C. No. 1048 of 1994 (R). None the less a Review application shall be preferred so that care may be taken for the present petitioners who have already entered into full and final settlement by receiving sizeable amount before the Writ Petition was decided by this Court. In view of these facts, it cannot be said that there was willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court. Hence, there is no substance in this application and this Contempt Application is hereby dismissed. Application dismissed.