JUDGMENT N S Sanjay Gowda, J. - In the year 2004, the petitioner herein had filed W.P.No.19663/2004 for a direction to the Management to pay the workmen the arrears of wages, the benefits under the Tripartite Committee Wage Board, settlement bonus, etc., During the pendency of this writ petition, the Government passed an order on 27.02.2006 permitting the Management to close its establishment under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act. 2. This Court, by an order dated 24.08.2010 allowed the said writ petition and directed the Management to pay arrears of wages, benefits under the Tripartite Committee Wage Board, bonus and other statutory benefits payable under law for the period from November, 2002 upto the date of closure on 16.04.2006 after deducting the payments already made. The Management was given the benefit of paying the said amount in six equal monthly installments commencing from 01.10.2010. 3. The workmen, being unable to secure the benefits granted under the said order, filed a petition under Section 33(c)(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act for determination of the sums due. The Deputy Commissioner computed the dues and ultimately found that a sum of Rs.7,86,66,581/- was due to the workmen and the said amount was ordered to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. 4. The present writ petition filed by the workmen seeking for payment of amount due to them as per the determination that has been made in the proceedings under Section 33(c)(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 5. The petitioner, which is the Union, contends that a sum of Rs.2,87,32,716/- was outstanding to the workmen and in support of this contention, they placed reliance upon Annexure-J1, in which, the entitlement of the workmen was admitted by the employer, except insofar as it relates to closure compensation which was completely omitted. 6. Learned counsel submits that, deliberately, the closure compensation is not taken into consideration, though the notice issued to the workmen, which is evidenced by Annexure-D, itself categorically stated that the closure compensation payable under Section 25(o)(8) of the Industrial Disputes Act and other terminal benefits would be paid to the workmen in due course. 7. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner also submits that the workmen had computed closure compensation, which amounted to a sum of Rs.1,93,70,140/-, which was inclusive of interest as on that date. 8. 7. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner also submits that the workmen had computed closure compensation, which amounted to a sum of Rs.1,93,70,140/-, which was inclusive of interest as on that date. 8. On 27.02.2020, learned counsel for the petitioner-establishment submitted that calculation of the break up figure relating to closure compensation and other amounts due was required to be examined by the management and sought for a adjournment and the matter was accordingly adjourned. 9. On 15.09.2020, this Court passed an order stating that according to the workmen, the closure compensation was a sum of Rs.1,93,17,140/- and the petitioner-establishment was required to pay the said closure compensation. This Court directed the Management to verify the said claim and also ordered the Management to state in what manner the claim of the workmen was incorrect. 10. Thereafter, though the matter was adjourned to 22.09.2020 and thereafter to today, the management neither stated the amount due as closure compensation nor did not state in what manner the claimed sum of Rs.1,93,17,140/- was incorrect. It will therefore have to be held that the claim by the workmen was not disputed by the management and accordingly, the management would be required to pay a sum of Rs.1,93,17,140/- apart from future interest. 11. Learned Senior counsel for the Union drew the attention of this Court to the order passed on 13.08.2019 by which, the management submitted that its lands had been attached and the Deputy Registrar of Udupi Taluk had been appointed as the Managing Director and that only possibility of satisfying the claim, was by alienation of the said lands, which were currently attached. He also submits that the said order recorded the submission that the State Government, which had advanced a sum of Rs.12 Crores and thereafter directed the Government Advocate to secure instructions from the Deputy Commissioner regarding total extent of lands owned and held by the Government and state what extent of lands were required to be alienated to satisfy the claim of the employer. 12. He also submits that pursuant to the said order, the Government filed a memo dated 09.01.2020 in which, it has been sated that the management owned an extent of 109.75 acres and while obtaining a loan of Rs. 12 Crores from Government, they had created 50% of charge on the property bearing survey No.29/P3 of the Karkane. 12. He also submits that pursuant to the said order, the Government filed a memo dated 09.01.2020 in which, it has been sated that the management owned an extent of 109.75 acres and while obtaining a loan of Rs. 12 Crores from Government, they had created 50% of charge on the property bearing survey No.29/P3 of the Karkane. He also brought to my notice that as per the letter of Deputy Registrar dated 29.08.2019, the present market value of the land is around Rs. 2.00 Crores to Rs.2.50 Crores per acre and hence 3 acres of land out of 25 acres situated in survey No. 29/P3 could be alienated to liquidate the claim of the employer. 13. In view of the above orders and the memo filed by the Government, it would become necessary to direct the Government to dispose of the requisite extent of land and satisfy the claim of the workmen of Rs. 1,93,17,140/- along with future interest @ 9% p.a. 14. Having regard to the fact that the workmen were held entitled to the said sum in on order passed in Writ Petition No.19963/2004 in 2010 itself, it is necessary to direct the State Government to take immediate steps to sell the lands to the extent that would be required to satisfy the claim of the workmen. The State Government shall ensure that the lands are sold within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The State shall immediately after the sale, satisfy the claim of the workmen within a period of one month thereafter. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.