JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. These two writ petitions have been filed by M/s.Ballarpur Industries Ltd. against the award passed in I.D. case Nos.19 of 1998 and 16 of 1998 on 24th May, 2001 by the Labour Court whereby and where under the Management has been directed to pay retrenchment compensation or notice pay which the workmen are entitled to receive and all other dues, if any, within a month together with interest @ 18% per annum to be compounded at the end of each year from the date it fell due till payment. The fact leading to a dispute which ultimately culminated into two references and both the references have been taken up together by the Labour Court in order to adjudicate the same. 2. The fact of the case is that M. Govinda Rao had been appointed as jeep driver vide appointment letter dtd.27.10.1983 under M/s.Sewa Paper Limited, Jeypore in the district of Koraput while B. Janardhan Rao had been appointed as a Clerk vide order dtd.23.10.1987. The Mill became sick and was closed from 23.10.1987 / 31.10.1987. There were 709 permanent employees, 109 contract labourers and 78 forest workers, total comes to 906 employees on the roll of the Mill out of which 734 including both the above named workmen were retrenched in the month of October, 1987. From the date of appointment till retrenchment both the workmen were engaged in the forest department of the Mill. The forest department was collecting raw materials, forest produces including bamboos for the Mill. For rehabilitation of the Mill and Mill workers the matter was referred to the Board for Industrial Finance and Reconstruction which passed an award on 20th June 1991. The Government of Orissa nationalized the forests and took over operation of the forest in the year 1988. It created the Orissa Forest Development Corporation to take up collection and cutting of forest products, plantations and trade of forest goods. The Orissa Forest Development Corporation issued a letter on 12.8.1989 for reengagement of retrenched employees of the Paper Mills working in the forest department, both the workmen had not been engaged by the Orissa Forest Development Corporation or by the transferee company, namely, M/s.Ballarpur industries Ltd. Unit Sewa. The grievance of the workmen could not have been redressed, they had raised dispute before the Asst. The grievance of the workmen could not have been redressed, they had raised dispute before the Asst. Labour Officer, Jeypore who had conducted conciliation proceeding, submitted failure report to the Government finding existence of industrial dispute, the appropriate Government, i.e. the State of Orissa had referred the dispute for adjudication in exercise of power conferred U/s.12(5) read with Section 10-1(C) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide order dtd.26.09.1998 and 10.10.1998 respectively whereby and where under the following references have been made:- Industrial Dispute Case No.19 of 1998 Schedule. “Whether the action of the management of M/s.Ballarpur Industries Limited (Transferee Company), Unit Sewa, Gaganapur, Jeypore under clause 20 of the BIFR Award by retrenching the services of Sri M. Govinda Rao, Ex-Jeep Driver of the Forest Organization of Transferor Company M/s.Sewa Paper Limited, Gaganpur, Jeypore w.e.f. 20.01.1988 is legal and / or justified? If not, what relief Shri M. Govinda Rao is entitled?” Industrial Dispute Case No.16 of 1998 Schedule. “Whether the action of the management of M/s.Ballarpur Industries Limited (Unit Sewa), Gaganapur, Jeypore refusing employment to B. Janardan Rao, Clerk of erstwhile M/s.Sewa Paper Limited, Jeypore in accordance with the Clause-2 of the memorandum of understanding dtd.09.08.1990 read with clause 20 of the BIFR Award dtd.20.06.1991 (scheme) is legal and / or justified? If not, what relief Sri Rao is entitled?” 3. The Labour Court in order to adjudicate the issue has called upon the parties to file their respective written statements and documents. The Labour Court has examined 3 witnesses for the workmen and the Management has also examined 3 witnesses on their behalf. The Labour Court after appreciating the document produced on behalf of the parties and ocular evidence of the witnesses adduced on their behalf has come to conclusion that the Paper Mills in Orissa has become defunct with nationalization of forest and creation of the Orissa Forest Development Corporation and as such are not at present in existence and its functions have been taken over by the Oriss Forest Development Corporation. The Government of Orissa apprehending termination of services of the forest employees in the paper mills issued direction to the Managing Directors of the Orissa Forest Development Corporation to engage such retrenched employees, as would be evident from Ext.H. The issue of nationalization has been published in the Gazette notification, as would be evident from Ext.G which is a notice to the public and as such the Labour Court has came to finding that both the workmen were aware of the nationalization of forest including Kalimela range and Chitrokonda range and as such both the workmen were retrenched due to closure of mill for becoming sick. Some of the retrenched employees have approached this Court vide O.J.C. No.234 of 1988 assailing the closure and retrenchment in which counter affidavit has been filed giving therein a statement to consider the cases of the retrenched employees who were willing to re-join and on this statement the Union has withdrawn the writ petition being not-pressed, the order passed by this court has been marked as Ext.C/2 but this Court after taking into consideration the fact that the writ petition has been withdrawn on the basis of statement made by the other side in the counter affidavit has taken it as no direction having been passed by this court in this regard with respect to re-engagement of the workmen and other similarly situated persons. The Labour Court after taking into consideration this aspect of the matter has reached to a definite finding that since the establishment itself has been closed, as such there is no question of engagement, but however, passed direction to follow the procedure before retrenchment of the workmen as provided under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 4. The sole controversy raised by the Management in this writ petition is that when both the workmen were not their employee having not been re-engaged, as such they are not liable to pay the retrenchment compensation. 5. We have gone through the Award passed by the Labour Court. The Labour Court has taken into consideration Clause 20 of the Award passed by the Board for Industrial Financing and Reconstruction on 20th June, 1991 which stipulates a condition that all the employees of the transferor company on the transfer date shall become the employees of the transferee company. We have gone through the Award passed by the Labour Court. The Labour Court has taken into consideration Clause 20 of the Award passed by the Board for Industrial Financing and Reconstruction on 20th June, 1991 which stipulates a condition that all the employees of the transferor company on the transfer date shall become the employees of the transferee company. The Labour Court has also taken into consideration Clause-2 of the Memorandum of Understanding arrived at in between the workers and the Management, i.e. the petitioner herein having been signed on 09.08.1990 which contains a condition to re-absorb permanent mill workers intending to join. The Labour Court after taking into consideration the provision as contained in Clause 20 of the award passed by the B.I.F.R. which contains condition that all the employees of the transferor company on the date of transfer shall become employees of the transferee company, but after going into the date of retrenchment of both the workmen which is prior to the date of the award, i.e. on the date both the workmen were not on the roll of the erstwhile company and as such the Labour Court has came to definite finding that the cases of both the workmen are not covered by Clause-20 of the B.I.F.R. Award dtd.20th June, 1991. The Labour Court has further came to conclusion that they are also not coming within the parameter of clause-2 of the Memorandum of Understanding dtd.09.08.1990 which pertains to the re-engagement clause and after taking into consideration both these aspects of the matter, the reference has been answered in favour of the Management by holding therein that refusal to engage is legal and justified, but however, it has been held in the award that the Management has not paid retrenchment compensation or notice pay which the workmen are entitled to receive and as such order has been passed directing the Management to pay the retrenchment compensation. 6. 6. So far as the first part regarding refusal to engage is concerned, according to us the erstwhile company, wherein both the workmen were working have been retrenched due to sickness and the matter has been referred before the B.I.F.R. which contains a condition at clause 20 which stipulates regarding taking over the services of permanent employees who were on roll of the service and it is the admitted case of the workmen that both the workmen have been retrenched from service in the month of October, 1987 and as such, as per clause 20 of the award dtd.20th June, 1991, both the workmen cannot be said to be on roll of the erstwhile company and hence they have not been given the benefit of clause 20 of the award, however, for those workmen who have been retrenched, the present petitioner has come out with a Memorandum of Understanding to offer re-engagement and accordingly offer has been made for re-engagement, but for one reason or the other both the workmen have not been re-engaged. Taking into consideration these factual aspects which have been taken note by the Labour Court in the award, we find that there is no reason to interfere with the same. 7. Taking into consideration these factual aspects which have been taken note by the Labour Court in the award, we find that there is no reason to interfere with the same. 7. So far as the other part of the award which relates to retrenchment compensation or notice pay which the workmen are entitled to receive, there is no dispute about the fact that the Labour Court has reached to finding that neither the provision of clause-20 of the award dtd.20th June, 1991 is applicable to the retrenched workmen who are not on permanent employment, nor the provision of clause 2 of the Memorandum of Understanding dtd.09.08.1991 is applicable to the workmen herein, meaning thereby the Labour Court has reached to conclusion that both the workmen have been retrenched way back in the year 1987 and accordingly answered the reference, but, thereafter passed the order of retrenchment compensation, now the question is that who will pay the retrenchment compensation to the workmen, whether the present petitioner or the erstwhile company, or the Orissa Forest Development Corporation as because the admitted case is that both the workmen were never on the roll of the present petition having not been re-engaged in view of the provision of clause 2 of the Memorandum of understanding dtd.09.08.1990 and they have also not covered under the provision of clause 20 of the B.I.F.R. award dtd.20th June, 1991, but the Labour Court without deciding as to who is to pay the retrenchment compensation, has inflicted liability upon the petitioner –Management without leading any evidence in this regard, hence according to us that part of the award is error apparent on the face of record in view of the fact and circumstances of this case. Accordingly we after applying the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Syed Yakoob Vrs. K. S. Radhakrishnan and others, AIR 1964 SC 477 and M/s.Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. Accordingly we after applying the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Syed Yakoob Vrs. K. S. Radhakrishnan and others, AIR 1964 SC 477 and M/s.Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. Krishna Kant Pandey, (2015) 4 SCC 270 wherein it has been held that if the award suffers from perversity or there is error apparent on the face of record, the High Court may interfere with the award in the process of judicial review in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and accordingly we quash the part of the award whereby and where under the present petitioner has been held liable to pay retrenchment compensation without leading any evidence in this regard as to who will take the liability to pay retrenchment compensation, aking into consideration this aspect of the matter, the issue needs fresh adjudication, accordingly the issue is referred before the Labour Court for its fresh adjudication regarding the liability for making payment of retrenchment compensation in favour of the workmen in question. Accordingly both the writ petitions stand disposed of with above observation and direction.