Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1350 (BOM)

Sarva Shramik Sangh v. Swan Mills Ltd.

2014-06-26

N.M.JAMDAR

body2014
JUDGMENT : Writ Petition No.6528 of 2003 is filed by M/s. Swan Mills Limited, Mumbai. Writ Petition No.1842 of 2005 is filed by Sarva Shramik Sangh on behalf of certain workmen of M/s.Swan Mills Limited. Both these petitions challenge the order passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai dated 14 February 2003. By the impugned order, the Industrial Court partly allowed the complaint filed by the Sarva Shramik Sangh and directed Swan Mills Limited to pay wages to the workmen for the period between 27 January 1989 and 5 February 1991. The Swan Mills Limited is aggrieved by the direction of payment of wages for this period and the Sarva Shramik Sangh is aggrieved by denial of its claim of reinstatement with full back wages. 2. The Sarva Shramik Sangh-Union had taken initiative in forming the workers co-operative to run the mill’s various units in Mumbai. The Swan Mills Limited (Swan Mills) had one unit at Kurla and two units at Sewree. The unit at Sewree was a process house and other unit was a composite textile mill. The material produced at both mills was processed through the process house. The Swan Mill had a Head Office where the various activities such as accounts, purchase, fiber department, cotton department etc. took place. From the Head Office Mill was being supervised. 3. On 27 January 1987, when the concerned members of the Union working in the Head Office had reported to their work, they were faced with closed gates and a notice board informing that the work of the company is closed and the workmen will be informed by general notice when it will be resumed. Thereafter, on 5 February 1991, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was arrived at between Swan Mills and one Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS). In the Memorandum, it was recorded that the Swan Mills will operating Spinning Units including 14 Synthetic Frames. It will also operate Winding, Watch & Ward, Engineering and Electrical Department, Offices, Sanitation, Hospital Dispensary, Rationing Shop and provide employment to the employees in the Spinning Departments in Kurla unit. All other departments of the Mill were to remain closed. In the Memorandum, it was recorded that the Swan Mills will operating Spinning Units including 14 Synthetic Frames. It will also operate Winding, Watch & Ward, Engineering and Electrical Department, Offices, Sanitation, Hospital Dispensary, Rationing Shop and provide employment to the employees in the Spinning Departments in Kurla unit. All other departments of the Mill were to remain closed. It was recorded in the memorandum that, after reopening of the mill, the employer will pay within the period of one month from the date of receipt of resignations, the 15 days’ average pay for each year of continuous service, as ex-gratia payment equivalent to retrenchment compensation and all other legal dues, including gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, bonus, earned wages, leave with wages etc.; to those employees whose services were not required. There were various other clauses in the Memorandum. It was recorded that a suitable agreement under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act would be drawn later. At that time, the Mill was owned by one J.P. Goenka group. One Shri Navin C. Dave, an industrialist, Mumbai was also signatory to the Memorandum, styling himself as the new promoter. 4. The Swan Mills had made a reference to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies Act (SICA). The proceedings took place before the BIFR on 20 February 1992. During the proceedings, proposed Swan Mills Kamgar Sahakari Society Ltd. and other unions, financial institutes, representatives of the governmental bodies were present. The BIFR considered the draft scheme for rehabilitation of the Swan Mill. The scheme was circulated amongst all the parties. At the hearing the draft scheme was discussed. During the hearing, Shri Dave, the new promoter stated, that trial runs in the spinning unit were undertaken and the company was intending to start Tyre-Cord division and automatic looms. It was placed on record that the payment of Rs.3 crores was made to 750 workers. The representative of the financial Institution agreed to grant concessions to make the Swan Mills, viable. Shri Dave informed the Board that he had brought in Promoters Contribution of Rs.936 lacs and the Board of Directors would be reconstituted within six months. Considering all these aspects, the BIFR sanctioned the Scheme on 20 September 1992. 5. The Scheme provided for the rehabilitation of the Swan Mill, laying down the modalities. Shri Dave informed the Board that he had brought in Promoters Contribution of Rs.936 lacs and the Board of Directors would be reconstituted within six months. Considering all these aspects, the BIFR sanctioned the Scheme on 20 September 1992. 5. The Scheme provided for the rehabilitation of the Swan Mill, laying down the modalities. It was noted that consequent on closure of the weaving and processing sections, retrenchment of about 2158 workers and 488 persons, was envisaged. The statutory and other liabilities of the workers were calculated. It was provided that the new promoters will get the shares by Shri J.P. Goenka and his associates transferred in the name of the new promoters. As regards the workmen, it was agreed that proposed retrenchment of labour force and wage freeze for the first two years of operations after commencement of the scheme of MOU would be as per MOU dated 5 February 1991. IDBI was appointed as an implementing agency. 6. On 13 July 1992, the Union filed a Complaint (ULP) No. 993 of 1992 in the Industrial Court, Mumbai alleging unfair labour practice under Section 28(1) read with Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act). In short the case of the Union was : The Swan Mill without giving notice discontinued its operation from 27 January 1989. Till 25 January 1989, the concerned workmen were in continuous service and taking advantage of the fact that the 26 January was a Republic day and all the workmen were enjoying their holiday, the shutters were closed and work was refused to the workmen. No permissions were sought nor any notice was put up to lay off or retrench the workmen. A meeting was organised in presence of Finance Minister of State, and the Mill promised that the work will start within three months, however, none of the concerned employees were given work. Mill did not offer any work to the staff members working at the Head office and work was getting done through other agency or the employees and also new hands were appointed. Accordingly, the Union prayed that the Swan Mills be directed to pay wages to the employees working at Head office from 27 January 1989 and they should be given work. 7. Accordingly, the Union prayed that the Swan Mills be directed to pay wages to the employees working at Head office from 27 January 1989 and they should be given work. 7. The Industrial Court by the order dated 6 November 1997 held that the complaint filed by the Union was not maintainable as it was presented through unrecognised Union. This order was challenged by the Union by a Writ Petition No.2030 of 1998, which was allowed by order dated 6 July 2000, permitting the concerned employees to be impleaded as complainants. Accordingly, individual workmen were joined in the complaint, and thereafter also in the present petitions. 8. The Swan Mills filed its written statement. It was its contention that none of the workmen raised any demand inspite of fact that the operations were suspended since more than two years and after the scheme was sanctioned by BIFR, the complaint was filed. It was contended that the Swan Mills was declared as a sick unit on 11 February 1988. The scheme for rehabilitation was sanctioned by BIFR on 20 February 1992, and that the Scheme was binding on all the workmen, including the Union. It was contended that the Scheme has given effect to the memorandum of 5 February 1991 which provides for ex-gratia payment. The concerned workmen refused to accept the exgratia payment. It was also contended that since there is a change in the employer, the provisions of Section 25-FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act) are applicable and the only claim that can arise is for compensation. 9. Both the parties led oral evidence and produced the documents on record. The Industrial Court came to the conclusion that Section 25-FF could not be made applicable as only an operating agency has been appointed for the Scheme under Section 17(3) of the SICA, and there is no transfer of ownership. It held that the management was given to some other agency with a view to explore the possibility of revival, and there s no transfer. The Industrial Court held that it could not direct payment of wages to the concerned workmen from 1991 onwards as it would be against the scheme sanctioned under SICA, for which the Industrial Court had no jurisdiction. The Industrial Court held that it could not direct payment of wages to the concerned workmen from 1991 onwards as it would be against the scheme sanctioned under SICA, for which the Industrial Court had no jurisdiction. The Industrial Court however held that the wages from 27 January 1989 i.e. from stoppage of work till 5 February 1991, i.e. date of MOU, will have to be paid by the Swan Mills. The Industrial Court by the impugned order dated 14 February 2003 partly allowed the complaint and directed Swan Mills to pay wages to the workmen from 27 January 1989 to 5 February 1991, and rejected the other claims of the Union. 10. In the meanwhile, on 11 December 1995, the Swan Mills reported positive net worth and is now longer a sick unit, and the provisions of SICA no longer apply. 11. When the Writ Petition No.6582 of 2003 filed by the Swan Mills came up on board for admission, the Swan Mills submitted that it was prepared to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs.10 lacs. to show its bonafides. Accordingly, a bank guarantee was furnished and the petition was admitted. Thereafter the petition filed by the Union was also admitted and both of them are taken up together for hearing. 12. Mr. V.P. Vaidya, learned counsel for the Swan Mills made two fold submissions. His first submission is that scheme has been sanctioned under the provisions of SICA, and therefore under Section 18(8) of the SICA, the scheme is binding on all the workmen, including the Union. He submitted that the workmen were represented before the BIFR, and in the scheme there is a reference to the Memorandum dated 5 February 1991. He submitted that this memorandum lays down a methodology for discontinuance of work force and absorption of certain categories of workmen, and since the Scheme is accepted, the workmen will have to follow this methodology and cannot claim any other benefits and other remuneration. He submitted that the new promoters have invested substantial amount to bring the company out of financial trouble and once there is a scheme for revival sanctioned, no additional financial burden can be placed upon the new promoters. 13. Two issues arise from this contention. He submitted that the new promoters have invested substantial amount to bring the company out of financial trouble and once there is a scheme for revival sanctioned, no additional financial burden can be placed upon the new promoters. 13. Two issues arise from this contention. Firstly the legality of the Memorandum under the labour laws, and secondly whether the provisions of Section 18 would override the protection given to the workmen under labour laws. Mr. Ganguli, learned counsel for the Union placed on record the order passed by the learned Single Judge (Mrs. N.M. Mhatre, J.) of this Court in the case of M/s. Swan Mill Vs. Shri Shamrao Shankar Vaidya & Anr. decided on 17 April 2005 in Writ Petition No.847 of 2003. In this case, the Swan Mills had challenged the order of Labour Court granting reinstatement with back wages to a workman. The same Memorandum dated 5 February 1991 was pressed by Swan Mills into service to contend that, in view of the Memorandum, an order of reinstatement could not have been passed. The learned Single Judge held that the memorandum was not registered under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act and, therefore it cannot be considered as a settlement under Section 44 read with Section 114 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. It was categorically held that not being registered agreement or settlement the Memorandum would have no force of law, in respect of the workmen employed in the Mill. This order was challenged by Swan Mills by way of an appeal, and the appeal was also dismissed. Therefore, the Memorandum by itself cannot be relied upon to contend that the services of the workmen had come to an end lawfully. The Memorandum itself states that a suitable agreement in the BIFR shall be drawn later. The Memorandum is admittedly not registered under the relevant provisions of law. As noted above, the learned Single Judge has already interpreted the very Memorandum and its effect, as regards the claim for reinstatement, and has negatived the contention that in view of the Memorandum, reinstatement cannot be granted. I do not find any reason to take a different view. Furthermore this view has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. 14. I do not find any reason to take a different view. Furthermore this view has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. 14. The next question is that though the Memorandum cannot be enforced by itself, since it is a part of the scheme sanctioned by BIFR, will it be binding under Section 18(8) of SICA. Here again the issue is no longer res integra, in respect of the very same Mill. A group of petitions was filed by Swan Mills challenging the reinstatement of the workmen ordered by the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court had granted relief to the workmen working in the Spinning Department. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that conditions precedent for retrenchment under relevant law were not followed. The appeals filed before the Industrial Court were dismissed. In these writ petitions filed by Swan Mills, the learned Single Judge (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. as he then was), noted that it was common ground that the provisions of Chapter-VB of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 applied at the material time since nearly 5000 workers were employed, and no permission for closure from appropriate government was taken. The same Scheme and the Memorandum were considered and discussed by the learned Judge. As regards Section 18 of SICA, the learned Judge observed as under :- “7. Section 18(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, makes provisions for the preparation and sanctioning of schemes. Sub-section (1) of Section 18 provides for measures which a scheme must address itself to. Thus, a scheme has to provide inter alia for the financial reconstruction of a sick industrial company (clause (a)) and for the proper management thereof (clause (b)). Clause (da) of Sub-section (1) provides that a scheme may incorporate measures for the rationalisation of managerial personnel, supervisory staff and workmen in accordance with law. Clause (da) was introduced by Amending Act 12 of 1994. Clause (da) of Sub-section (1) provides that a scheme may incorporate measures for the rationalisation of managerial personnel, supervisory staff and workmen in accordance with law. Clause (da) was introduced by Amending Act 12 of 1994. The Statement of Objects and Reasons accompanying the Bill inter alia, provides that the amendments which were proposed sought to remove certain ambiguities and strengthen internal coherence of the Act by refining certain provisions which are clarificatory in nature." Sub-section (8) of Section 18 provides that on and from the date of the coming into operation of a sanctioned scheme or any provision thereof, the scheme or such provision shall be binding on the sick industrial company and the transferee company or, as the case may be, the other company and also on shareholders, creditors, guarantors and employees. The provisions of Section 18(1)(da) which were inserted by the Amending Act of 1994 are clarificatory. Parliament has reiterated the basic premise that a rationalisation of personnel, staff and workmen must be in accordance with law. The scheme that was sanctioned in the present case, consistent with the provisions contained in the Act, does not override the lawful entitlement of workers such as those involved in the present case. The scheme contemplated that basically it was only the Spinning Department that would be revived together with other ancillary departments to which a reference is made in the scheme. The scheme provided for the grant of certain benefits to workmen who were prepared to resign from service. As for the rest, it is only evident that the severance of their status as workmen had to be brought about in accordance with law. The services of workmen engaged in departments which were not being revived would, therefore, have to be dispensed with in accordance with the substantive provisions contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. There is nothing in the scheme, based as it is on the relevant provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, to evince an intent to override the lawful entitlement of the body of workmen whose services could not be continued as a result of the closure of their departments, otherwise than by following the provisions of law.” (emphasis supplied) 15. The above mentioned observations clearly negatived the contention raised based on Section 18 of the SICA. The above mentioned observations clearly negatived the contention raised based on Section 18 of the SICA. The severance in relationship between the Mill and the workmen who had not resigned, will have to be brought about the method known under the Labour Laws. The Memorandum having no force of law will not put an end to the services of the workmen. 16. There is one more additional aspect. Even if the Memorandum was to be valid and legal settlement, still it cannot be ipso facto to bring about termination in service, without following the requirement of issuance of notice. The Division Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Oswal Agro Furane Ltd & Anr. Vs. Oswal Agro Furane Workers Union & Ors.1 held as under :- “14. A bare perusal of the provisions contained in Sections 25-N and 25-O of the Act leaves no manner of doubt that the employer who intends to close down the undertaking and/or effect retrenchment of workmen working in such industrial establishment, is bound to apply for prior permission at least ninety days before the date on which the intended closure is to take place. They constitute conditions precedent for effecting a valid closure, whereas the provisions of S.25-N of the Act provides for conditions precedent to retrenchment; S.25-O speaks of procedure for closing down an undertaking. Obtaining a prior permission from the appropriate Government, thus, must be held to be imperative in character. 15. A settlement within the meaning of Section 2(p) read with sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the Act undoubtedly binds the workmen but the question which would arise is, would it mean that thereby the provisions contained in Sections 25N and 25O are not required to be complied with? The answer to the said question must be rendered in the negative. A settlement can be arrived at between the employer and workmen in case of an industrial dispute. An industrial dispute may arise as regard the validity of a retrenchment or a closure or otherwise. Such a settlement, however, as regard retrenchment or closure can be arrived at provided such retrenchment or closure has been effected in accordance with law. A settlement can be arrived at between the employer and workmen in case of an industrial dispute. An industrial dispute may arise as regard the validity of a retrenchment or a closure or otherwise. Such a settlement, however, as regard retrenchment or closure can be arrived at provided such retrenchment or closure has been effected in accordance with law. Requirements of issuance of a notice in terms of Sections 25N and 25O, as the case may, and/or a decision thereupon by the appropriate Government are clearly suggestive of the fact that thereby a public policy has been laid down. The State Government before granting or refusing such permission is not only required to comply with the principles of natural justice by giving an opportunity of hearing both to the employer and the workmen but also is required to assign reasons in support thereof and is also required to pass an order having regard to the several factors laid down therein. One of the factors besides others which is required to be taken into consideration by the appropriate Government before grant or refusal of such permission is the interest of the workmen. The aforementioned provisions being imperative in character would prevail over the right of the parties to arrive at a settlement. Such a settlement must conform to the statutory conditions laying down a public policy. A contract which may otherwise be valid, however, must satisfy the tests of public policy not only in terms of the aforementioned provisions but also in terms of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act.” (emphasis supplied) Thus even if the memorandum was to be valid, the severance of relationship could not be brought about without following the mandatory provisions, which provisions are in the nature of public policy. Therefore, Swan Mills cannot contend that by virtue of Section 18(8) of SICA and on the basis of Memorandum, no relief of reinstatement could be sought for. These very arguments were made by Swan Mill earlier and have been rejected by this Court by two separate decisions. 17. The second argument of Mr. Vaidya is that since there is a transfer of management under Section 25-FF of the ID Act, the claim, if any, of the workmen would be of compensation in terms of Memorandum. He submitted that this issue was not decided in the earlier two decisions in respect of the Mill. 17. The second argument of Mr. Vaidya is that since there is a transfer of management under Section 25-FF of the ID Act, the claim, if any, of the workmen would be of compensation in terms of Memorandum. He submitted that this issue was not decided in the earlier two decisions in respect of the Mill. The argument based on Section 25-FF of the ID Act has been rejected by the Industrial Court on the ground that there is no transfer of management as only an implementing agency has been appointed. Though the reasoning adopted by the Industrial Court is faulty, the conclusion of the Court that there was no transfer from employer to a new employer, is correct. 18. Section 25-FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 reads as under :- “25-FF. Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.- Where the ownership or management of an undertaking is transferred, whether by agreement or by operation of law, from the employer in relation to that undertaking to a new employer, every workman who has been in continuous service for not less than one year in that undertaking immediately before such transfer shall be entitled to notice and compensation in accordance with the provisions of section 25F, as if the workman had been retrenched: Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a workman in any case where there has been a change of employers by reason of the transfer, if-- (a) the service of the workman has not been interrupted by such transfer; (b) the terms and conditions of service applicable to the workman after such transfer are not in any way less favourable to the workman than those applicable to him immediately before the transfer; and (c) the new employer is, under the terms of such transfer or otherwise, legally liable to pay to the workman, in the event of his retrenchment, compensation on the basis that his service has been continuous and has not been interrupted by the transfer.” 19. The essential ingredient of Section 25-FF is a transfer of undertaking from an employer to a new employer. There are various other facets of Section 25-FF, which need not be dealt with in detail, as the main contention of Mr. Ganguli that there was no change of employer. The basic question in the present case is thus : whether there is a change of employer. There are various other facets of Section 25-FF, which need not be dealt with in detail, as the main contention of Mr. Ganguli that there was no change of employer. The basic question in the present case is thus : whether there is a change of employer. 20. The concerned workmen employed with Swan Mills Limited, a company incorporated under Companies Act. The Swan Mills Limited still exists. When the Swan Mills was in financial difficulty, Mr. Dave as a financier offered to provide financial support and revive Swan Mills Limited. The minutes of proceedings before the BIFR show that Mr. Dave was to bring in finance from his own resources giving his personal guarantee and he had to reconstitute the Board of Directors of the Company and constitute a Management Committee. The Board noted that there would be change of a management. Under the scheme, the new promoters were under an obligation to get the shares of the company held by Mr. Goenka transferred to their names. Essentially, the scheme contemplated transfer of share capital and change of Board of Directors. The Swan Mills Limited continued. All that took place is the change of shareholders and Board of Directors. 21. Mr. Ganguli is right in submitting that such changes in the Board of Directors takes place regularly in the companies and the Directors get elected by the shareholders through election process, but that does not mean that whenever there is a change in the Board of Directors, Section 25-FF applies and services of the workmen stand affected. Therefore, as regards the workmen, their employer i.e. Swan Mills Limited continues to exist. There was no new employer in its place. The work of Swan Mills Limited continued. In fact it has ceased to be a sick unit from 11 December 1995. The workers were unconcerned with the change of Management within the Swan Mills for the purpose of Section 25-FF. It is not necessary therefore to go into the various facets of Section 25-FF, as the basic test for applicability of Section 25-FF is not fulfilled as there was no change in the employer. The argument of Mr. Vaidya that in view of sanctioning the Scheme, there was a change of employer and the provisions of Section 25-FF, will apply therefore cannot be accepted. The argument of Mr. Vaidya that in view of sanctioning the Scheme, there was a change of employer and the provisions of Section 25-FF, will apply therefore cannot be accepted. The contention that the new promoters had invested substantial amount and cannot be directed to pay more, also is without merit. It was a business proposition and commercial venture for the new promoters and that they will have to contribute more is no ground to withdraw statutory protection of the workmen. 22. Therefore, the resultant situation is that the workmen were arbitrarily turned away from the gates of the factory on 27 January 1989. They were willing to work but were not provided the work. There was no permission for closure. There was no formal notice of termination. Even till today their services are not brought to an end by following a procedure known to law. 23. Mr. Vaidya then submitted that even if the workers pursue their monetary claim against the Swan Mills Limited, it will be contrary to Section 22 of SICA. Firstly, this argument is rendered academic as the Swan Mills is now outside the purview of SICA since 11 December 1995, as its net worth was reported positive. Secondly, in view of the decision in the case of Ralliwolf Ltd. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I, 2001 (2) Mh.L.J. 169 , the issue vis-a-vis workers’ dues and Section 22 of SICA is concluded. In this case, the question arose as to whether provident fund dues payable to the workmen would be recovered from the establishment in respect of whom the proceedings are pending under SICA. The learned Single Judge (D.Y. Chandrachud, J. as he then was) considered the provisions of Section 22 of the SICA and came to the conclusion that Section 22 would not operate in the field of wages, gratuity and other statutory benefits payable to the workmen. Decision of the another learned Single Judge (A.P. Shah, J as he then was) in the case of Modistone Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Labour, 1999 II CLR 371, was followed. Similar view was taken by the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of Gowri Spinning Mills (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and Anr., (2006) 134 Comp. Cas. 33 (Mad). The decision of the Apex Court in the case of Raheja Universal Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Labour, 1999 II CLR 371, was followed. Similar view was taken by the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of Gowri Spinning Mills (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and Anr., (2006) 134 Comp. Cas. 33 (Mad). The decision of the Apex Court in the case of Raheja Universal Limited Vs. NRC Limited and Ors., (2012) 4 Supreme Court Cases 148, relied upon by Mr. Vaidya does not apply to the facts of the case in hand. In the case of Raheja Universal Limited, the Apex Court was considering the implementation of commercial agreement between two parties. It was a claim arising out of an agreement which was sought to be enforced contrary to the provisions of Section 22 of SICA. The claim of workmen for wages stand on different footing. Even otherwise, as stated above, the Swan Mill is no longer as sick unit and is not covered under the purview of the SICA. 24. The Industrial Court has granted only the wages for the period from 1989 to 1991. This is based on the premise that after the scheme was sanctioned, the workers had no right. As discussed above, this finding is erroneous and contrary to the various orders passed by this Court earlier in respect of the very Mill. It will therefore have to be declared that the concerned workmen continued to be in the employment of the Swan Mills and their services were never terminated. It is informed that by passage of time, most of the concerned workmen have superannuated, and some have expired. 25. Before the workmen were turned away from the gates of the factory, the workmen had put in years of service. They were simply told one morning by a notice on the board that factory is closed. Their services were not terminated by a method known to law. No permission was taken nor any procedure was followed. The workers were simply left in lunch. Such situation is abhorrent to industrial jurisprudence. Many other workmen took the monetary package that was offered to them and relinquished their claim. The concerned workmen refused to accept the offer and decided to fight for their right to work. Unfortunately, by the time the petition came up for hearing, and is being allowed, the workers have expired or have past the age of superannuation. Many other workmen took the monetary package that was offered to them and relinquished their claim. The concerned workmen refused to accept the offer and decided to fight for their right to work. Unfortunately, by the time the petition came up for hearing, and is being allowed, the workers have expired or have past the age of superannuation. It is not possible to give them work and only relief of declaration and grant of monetary benefits can be given. 26. Accordingly, the Writ Petition No.1842 of 2005 is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). The concerned workmen will be entitled to all the monetary benefits as regular employees. Writ Petition No.6528 of 2003 is dismissed. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No.6528 of 2003-Swan Mills will pay to the workmen the monetary component payable to them under this order within a period of eight weeks from today. The petitions are disposed of accordingly.