Judgment :- (1.) In the writ petition Kanoria Jute and Industries Limited, Sangrami Shramik Union, the petitioner No.1, its General Secretary, the petitioner No. 2 and a member of the petitioner No.1 and a worker of Kanoria Jute and Industries Limited (for short KJIL) the petitioner No.3 have prayed for a direction upon the respondents to extend the benefit of the "Scheme for Financial Assistance to the Workers in Locked out industrial units (FAWLOI)" (for short "the Scheme") with effect from 1st April, 2007 instead of 1st July, 2007 as mentioned in the notification dated 11th October, 2007 ("said notification" for short) issued by the Labour Commissioner, respondent No.3. The submissions of the petitioners in brief are since, KJIL, the unit, is under lock out since 19th March, 2006, under the Scheme it is eligible for coverage with effect from 1st April, 2007 instead of 1st July, 2007. Since the Scheme is a beneficial one and as evident from the notification it was the decision of the State to extend the benefit of the scheme for another one year with effect from 1st April, 2007, the decision of the Government not to extend it to the employees of the unit from 1st April, 2007 is against the purport of the Scheme. According to the petitioner though units which were already enjoying the benefits of the Scheme would continue with such enjoyment with effect from 1st April, 2007, however, the employees of KJIL would stand deprived from the benefits for the period 1st April, 2007 to 30th June, 2007 for some inexplicable reason which is in violation of the provisions contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the workers of KJIL had been discriminated against. Since the workers are leading their lives abject poverty, a representation dated 30th January, 2009 was furnished before the respondent No.3 praying for extension of the Scheme from April, 2007 and for payment of arrears. However, it has gone unheeded. Being aggrieved the writ petition. (2.) The writ petition was moved on 23rd April, 2009 when after hearing the learned Advocates for the parties directions were issued for filing of affidavits. Affidavits have since been exchanged and are on record. However, it has gone unheeded. Being aggrieved the writ petition. (2.) The writ petition was moved on 23rd April, 2009 when after hearing the learned Advocates for the parties directions were issued for filing of affidavits. Affidavits have since been exchanged and are on record. (3.) Learned Advocate for the petitioner reiterating the statements in the writ petition submitted that the fixation of date for giving effect to the Scheme cannot be on the whims of the Selection Committee. Once units are found to be eligible and identification is made by the Screening Committee, procedure under the Scheme would naturally follow. Notice is issued to the workers of the approved units. In the instant case as undisputedly the unit has fulfilled all the stipulations and more particularly as it has been locked out since 19th March, 2006, that is as it was under lock out more than one year as on 1st April, 2007, the workers are entitled to the benefits from 1st April, 2007 and not with effect from 1st July, 2007 as mentioned in the notification dated 11th October, 2007. Moreover, the notification is not supported by a decision arrived at by the Screening Committee. (4.) Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, relying on the affidavit in opposition particularly paragraph 7 thereof, submitted as the Scheme does not have any statutory force, the petitioners have no enforceable right. Since grant of financial assistance is a policy decision of the State, Courts should not interfere. Moreover, in the Scheme there is no effective date regarding implementation. Submission was made that since applications were furnished or 7th April, 2007 and on 16th April, 2007, that is after the quarter starting from 1st April, 2007 had commenced, the Screening Committee in its meeting held on 20th September, 2007 thought it proper to give effect to the provisions of the scheme from 1st July, 2007. Since the members of the Screening Committee are senior officers, there was practical difficulty in holding meetings too often. Moreover, as the grant of financial assistance depended on financial resources, the notification is just and proper. Learned Advocate for the respondent had relied on the decisions of the Apex Court in Ekta Shakti Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi reported in (2006)10 SCC 337 and Ramchandra Murarilal Bhattad and. Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. Moreover, as the grant of financial assistance depended on financial resources, the notification is just and proper. Learned Advocate for the respondent had relied on the decisions of the Apex Court in Ekta Shakti Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi reported in (2006)10 SCC 337 and Ramchandra Murarilal Bhattad and. Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2007)2 SCC 588 in support of his submission. (5.) The question which falls for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to financial assistance from 1st April, 2007. (6.) In order to answer the question it is necessary to refer to the salient features of the Scheme, annexed to the writ petition, which are as under: "RESOLUTION NO.506 IR Dated 14.5.1998 "..........Scheme for Financial Assistance to the Workers in Locked out Industrial Units (FAWLOI)" with effect from 1.4.08. The Scheme is as below : SCHEME FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO THE WORKERS IN-LOCKED OUT INDUSTRIAL UNITS (FAWLOI) In the sphere of closed industries, the main policy thrust is on reopening of the closed units. A provision of Rs. 50 Crores has been earmarked in this years State Budget to facilitate such re-opening of Cloted Units. Along with this thrust, a separate provision of Rs. 50 Crores has been earmarked with the objective of providing some financial relief to the workers who are out of employment due to alleged closure of Industrial units in West Bengal. The financial assistance to the workers is intended not to compensate for the loss of income but to extend some relief to the workers affected by prolonged lock out/suspension of work/alleged closure of Industrial units in West Bengal. The eligible workers would be entitled to a cash assistance of Rs. 500/-per month with effect from 01.04.98. The salient features of the scheme are as follows: - 1. The eligible workers would be entitled to a cash assistance of Rs. 500/-per month with effect from 01.04.98. The salient features of the scheme are as follows: - 1. Industrial Units to be covered under the Scheme : (i) The Industrial units should be factories and plantations registered under the Factories Act, 1948 and the Plantation Labour Act, 1951 in West Bengal; (ii) The Industrial units have been under lockout/suspension of work/alleged closure for more than one year on 31.03.98 ; (iii) Such units have been in operation for more than five years prior to the incident of such closure ; (iv) Though closure order/winding up order/liquidation order has been passed in respect of a unit by BIFR/ Court/Tribunal, the same has been challenged in the appropriate Legal Forum ; (v) Such Government is the appropriate Government for the units under the Industrial Disputes Act; (vi) The unit is one which has had regular production activities and not a seasonal one. (Note : If a unit has branches in different States, workers in West Bengal only will get the benefit.) 2. Screening Committee for Selection of Units and Procedure thereof: While the Committee Will examine the records of the Labour Directorate and the Factories Directorate to identify the units, registered Trade Unions may bring to the notice of the Committee the names of such units which they feel should be included and these will be considered in the light of the conditions of eligibility on the basis of available records and necessary enquiries. 3. Eligibility of Workers : On approval of the Industrial unit(s) by the Committee the Labour Directorate will issue notice(s) to this effect. On issue of the notice(s) by the directorate, the workers of the approved unit(s) become eligible to be covered under the scheme. 3.1 In order to get the benefit under the scheme a worker in the unit has to satisfy the following conditions : - By order of the Governor Secretary to Govt. of West Bengal" (Emphasis Supplied) (7.) As seen, a unit, in order to be covered under the Scheme has to be registered under Factories Act, 1948 and the Plantation Labour Act in West Bengal. It should have been under lockout for more than one year on 31st March, 1998 and in operation for more than five years prior to the incident of closure. It should have been under lockout for more than one year on 31st March, 1998 and in operation for more than five years prior to the incident of closure. Though closure, winding up, suspension of work has been ordered by BIFR, Court or Tribunal, same is under challenge in the appropriate Legal Forum. The unit had a regular production and is not a seasonal one. (8.) So far identification of units is concerned, under paragraph 2 of the Scheme, the Screening Committee for selection of industrial establishments after examining the records of the Labour Directorate and the Factories Directorate, shall identify the units and cases will be considered in the light of the conditions of eligibility on the basis of records and after making necessary enquiries. Thus a duty is cast on the Committee to identify the units. Units themselves have no role to play in such identification. At best the registered Trade Union "may bring to the notice of the Committee the name of such units which they feel should be included". Thereafter, on approval, the Labour Directorate will issue notice. Upon issuance of notice the workers of the approved units become eligible to be covered under the Scheme. Once a unit becomes eligible, in order to get the benefit, a worker in a unit has to satisfy certain conditions laid down in the scheme. (9.) In the instant case undisputedly the unit fulfils all the parameters under paragraph 1 of the Scheme particularly paragraph 1 (ii) as it is under lock out since 19th March, 2006. Since it fulfilled the conditions, it was identified by the Screening Committee for the grant of financial assistance. Thus, there is no dispute that it is an approved industrial unit. Hence, notice was issued to the workers to get benefit subject to the fulfilment of the eligibility clauses under 3.1 of the scheme. (10.) Now the issue is, as seen, whether the workers are entitled to the financial benefits with effect from 1st April, 2007 instead of 1st July, 2007 as mentioned in the notification. Hence, notice was issued to the workers to get benefit subject to the fulfilment of the eligibility clauses under 3.1 of the scheme. (10.) Now the issue is, as seen, whether the workers are entitled to the financial benefits with effect from 1st April, 2007 instead of 1st July, 2007 as mentioned in the notification. The argument on behalf of the respondent that in case of fresh unit the date of coverage would be from the first working day of the relevant quarter when meeting of the Screening Committee was held is not acceptable since the Scheme nowhere stipulates that grant has to be from the first working day of the quarter when meeting was held. If such a submission on behalf of the respondent is accepted, grant of assistance to the workers would be dependant on the whims of the members of the Screening Committee. Moreover, one cannot be oblivious to the fact that as on 1st April, 2007 the unit was under lock out for more than one year and thus, had fulfilled one of the salient features under the Scheme. (11.) Further, the oral submission on behalf of the respondent that since the petitioner had represented on 7th April, 2007 and on 16th April, 2007, that is after the quarter had begun, the respondents were justified in granting benefit of the Scheme from 1st July, 2007, that is the next quarter, is of no assistance, since under paragraph 2 of the Scheme a duty has been given to the Screening Committee to identify the units after examining the records of the Labour Directorate and Factories Directorate and to consider the cases on the basis of records and after making necessary enquiries. It is to be noted under the Scheme "registered Trade Unions" have no role to play except that they "may bring to the notice of the Committee the names of such units which they feel should be included". The role of the registered Trade Unions, as correctly contended by the petitioner, is persuasive. It is to be noted under the Scheme "registered Trade Unions" have no role to play except that they "may bring to the notice of the Committee the names of such units which they feel should be included". The role of the registered Trade Unions, as correctly contended by the petitioner, is persuasive. Therefore, in the instant case since the petitioner had fulfilled the conditions under the Scheme particularly with regard to paragraph 1 (ii) as it was lying closed since 19th March, 2006, that is more than one year, which the Committee ought to have taken note of, the extension of the scheme to the petitioner with effect from 1st July, 2007 is unjust and arbitrary. During hearing an argument was advanced on behalf of the State that the petitioners are not entitled to relief since the scheme is the result of a policy decision and has no statutory force. In my view such submission cannot be accepted, as it is an evident from the Gazette Notification dated 20th May, 1998 issued by the Government of West Bengal, Labour Department that it is an executive action of the Government of the State in the name of the Governor under Article 166 of the Constitution of India and a budgetary allocation is made. Thus, once state distributes largess as evident from the Scheme, it has to be done in a fair, just and equitable manner. However, in the instant case this is absent since units which have been enjoying the benefits would continue with such enjoyment from 1st April, 2007, however, the employees of KJIL would stand deprived from such benefits for the period from 1 st April, 2007 to 30th June, 2007 which is discriminatory and is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Besides, it is to be noted though fairness demands that a direction should be preceded by a reasoned decision, in the instant case it is missing. Besides, it is to be noted though fairness demands that a direction should be preceded by a reasoned decision, in the instant case it is missing. The judgment of the Apex Court in Ekta Shakti Foundation (supra) relied on by the respondent is not applicable to the facts of the case as the petitioner therein had questioned the rationale of the stipulation regarding three years experience of working as a non-profit organisation or public trust registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, whereas in the case in hand the petitioners are trying to be a beneficiary of the Scheme and not questioning it. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramchandra Murarilal Bhattad (supra) is not applicable as in the case in hand the petitioners have questioned the highhanded attitude of the respondents in implementing the Scheme framed by the state. (12.) Therefore, for the reasons as mentioned, the notification dated 11th October, 2007 issued by the Labour Commissioner, West Bengal, respondent No.3, being annexure P6 to the writ petition, so far it relates to the petitioners, is arbitrary and illegal and is, thus, set aside and quashed. The respondents including the respondent No.3 are directed to extend the benefit of FAWLOI Scheme to the workers of KJIL with effect from 1st April, 2007 within a fortnight from the date of communication of this order. (13.) The writ petition is, thus, allowed. No order as to costs.