JUDGMENT: JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS, J. 1. THE petitioners in this writ petition dated October 5, 2007 are aggrieved by the decision of the Screening Committee "(Constituted under the Labour Department Resolution No. 507-IR dated May 15, 1998)" dated July 27, 2007, Annexure P3 at p.37, that, on the facts, they would not be entitled to financial assistance under the scheme "FAWLOI" with effect from October 1, 2005. 2. BY the Labour Department Resolution No. 506-IR dated May 14, 1998 (not No. 507-IR dated May 15, 1998 as wrongly mentioned in the impugned decision) and which was subsequently amended by the Labour Department Notification No. 1272-IR dated October 12, 1998, the state government introduced a scheme called "Scheme for Financial Assistance to the Workers in Locked-out Industrial units (FAWLOI)." The scheme was introduced for providing financial assistance at the rate of Rs. 500 per month with effect from April 1, 1998 to the industrial workers thrown out of employment due to prolonged lockout, suspension of work, or closure in industrial units in the state. Life of the scheme was extended from time to time. The Labour Department, Government of West Bengal publishes a document with a view to giving the readers thereof an idea of the strengths and weaknesses in the administration of Labour Laws in the state and about the priority areas of actions. In the documents published from time to time, and also in the one published for the year 2007, while dealing with the cotton textile industry, the department mentioned that Shine Up Fibres Ltd., the employer of the members of the first petitioner and the other petitioners, one of the important private sector units, had subjected its workmen to a lockout; and that "no tangible progress could be achieved" till the date of publication of the document "towards reopening" of the unit "in spite of intervention of the conciliation machinery." 3. THE case of the petitioners stated in para.8 of the writ petition is as follows: "8. That after declaration of 'Suspension of Work/Lock Out' on March 12, 2002, the workmen i.e. petitioner no.2 to 141 applied for financial assistance to workers in the locked out Industrial Units (FAWLOI) i.e. 'FAWLOI Scheme' for providing financial assistance to the workers (sic) of Rs. 500/- per month and accordingly it is an admitted position by the respondents that the petitioners no. 500/- per month and accordingly it is an admitted position by the respondents that the petitioners no. 2 to 140 were receiving such allowance financial assistance w.e.f. December 1, 2003 to September, 2005 through the Bank A/c at Bank of Baroda, Bagnan Branch, Howrah, but all on a sudden and without assigning any reason from October, 2005, the respondent no. 1 and 2 stopped payment of the said monthly financial assistance to the petitioners." 4. SINCE financial assistance available under the scheme was stopped, the petitioners moved this Court by filing W.P. No. 8088 (W)/2007 that was disposed of by an order dated May 11, 2007, Annexure P2 at p.32, directing the screening committee to examine the grievances and give an appropriate decision. Accordingly, the screening committee gave the impugned decision. Opining that since a large number of workmen of Shine Up accepted its offer to resign from its services, take terminal benefits, and take up employment under one MFL Corporation that started operation in the premises of Shine Up under a transaction between Shine Up and MFL creating a lease, Shine Up could not be considered an employer subjecting its workmen to a lockout, the screening committee concluded that the workmen concerned, refusing to accept the benefits offered by Shine Up, would not be entitled to the financial assistance under the scheme with effect from October 1, 2005. The question is whether the benefits could be denied on this ground. 5. I find substantial force in the submissions of Mr Ghosh, counsel for the petitioners, that so long as Shine Up is recognized by the state government as an industrial unit locking the members of the first petitioner and the other petitioners out of its employment and the scheme remains in force, the benefits there under cannot be denied to the members of the first petitioner and the other petitioners on the ground that they refused to resign from the services of Shine Up, take terminal benefits, and accept employment under MFL. 6. MR Ghosh is right in saying that Shine Up has no power or right to compel the workmen concerned to resign from its services, take the terminal benefits and accept employment offered by another employer, though it is at liberty to exercise its powers and rights pertaining to retrenchment and closure according to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. MR Ghosh is justified in saying that the bipartite settlement referred to in the decision of the screening committee was not binding on the workmen concerned who were not parties to the settlement. Ms. Gutgutia, counsel for the state, has contested the case without filing any opposition, and she has argued that since the workmen concerned refused to accept better benefits offered by Shine Up and MFL, their remedy, if any, was only before the appropriate forum established under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 7. I am unable to accept this contention. The controversy involved in the present case has nothing to do with any existing or apprehended industrial dispute between the parties. Here the question is whether the workmen concerned are entitled to financial assistance under the scheme. There is no dispute that the workmen concerned were denied financial assistance under the scheme from; October 1,2005; and that life of the scheme was extended from time to time and beyond March 31,2007 (the date mentioned in the order of this Court dated May 11, 2007) as will appear from p.279 of the document published by the Labour Department, Government of West Bengal for 2007. 8. ON the facts, it must be held that the workmen concerned are still in the employment of Shine Up, because their refusal to resign from Shine Up' s services cannot amount to termination of their services; that Shine Up is still recognized by the government as an industrial unit locking its workmen out of its employment; and that life of the scheme, probably still in force, was extended upto March, 2008. Under the circumstances, I am unable to accept the case of the respondents that having refused to resign from Shine Up' s services, take the terminal benefits and take up employment under MFL, the members of the first petitioner and the other petitioners forfeited their right to financial assistance under the scheme from October 1, 2005. The screening committee has proceeded on a wrong premise that the transaction between Shine Up and MFL, acceptance of benefits of bipartite settlement by a large number of workmen, and refusal on the part of the workmen concerned to resign from Shine Up's services-collectively brought the lockout to an end. In its document for 2007 the government itself has shown Shine Up as an employer continuing to lock its workmen out of its employment. In its document for 2007 the government itself has shown Shine Up as an employer continuing to lock its workmen out of its employment. I am, therefore, of the view that the workmen concerned were entitled to financial assistance under the scheme beyond October 1,2005; and that they are entitled to the benefits so long as the scheme remains in force and applicable to Shine Up and they remain in Shine Up' s employment. 9. FOR these reasons, I allow the writ petition, set aside the impugned decision and issue a mandamus commanding the respondents, especially the first respondent, to give the workmen concerned financial assistance under the scheme from October 1, 2005 so long as they remain in employment of Shine Up and the scheme remains in force and applicable to Shine Up. Financial assistance arrears for the period from October 1, 2005 to March, 2008 shall be paid within a fortnight from the date of communication of this order to the first respondent, and benefits, if any, available from April, 2008 shall be given according to the provisions of the scheme. There shall be no order for costs. 10. URGENT certified xerox of this order, if applied for, shall be supplied to the parties within three days from the date of receipt of the file by the Section concerned.