ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. These appeals arise from the Judgment and order passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, dated 8-1-2019 in Writ Appeal Nos.460/2018 and 492/2018, by which a Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeals preferred by the respondents -herein (workmen) and thereby set aside the judgment passed by the Single Judge to a certain extent. 3. The issue involved in the present litigation is quite limited. 4. On 8-11-2004, the Industrial Court, Raipur, Chhattisgarh passed an order dated 8-11-2004 setting aside the Award passed by the Labour Court dated 4-12-2003 and directing reinstatement of the workmen with back wage and consequential benefits. 5. It appears from the materials on record that the appellant-Company is engaged in the manufacturing and sale of industrial and medical oxygen including acetylene gases. 6. It is the case of the respondents that large number of employees were retrenched by the industrial establishment on the ground that the industry was facing financial difficulties and was unable to pay wages. 7. It is also the case of the respondents that the retrenchment was resorted to without any kind of retrenchment compensation and in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. 8. The appellant - herein preferred Writ Petition No.5485/2004 challenging the order passed by the Industrial Court dated 8-11-2004, referred to above. The learned Single Judge of the High Court vide his order dated 9-1-2018 partly allowed the writ application wherein reinstatement was ordered in favour of two workmen however the award passed by the Industrial Court was set aside, primarily on the ground that the workmen had not entered the witness box and led evidence. 9. The workmen, being dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, preferred writ appeal. In writ appeal, the Court posed a question for its consideration whether the Single Judge was right in taking the view that since all workmen had not entered the witness box, they were not entitled to seek reinstatement. 10. The appeal Court adjudicated the issues between the parties and ultimately allowed the appeal filed by the workmen holding as under:- "8. The question which arises for consideration is whether the view taken by the Learned Single Judge whether all workmen were required to enter the witness box and on failure thereof, the benefit of reinstatement could not be extended to them. 9. The question which arises for consideration is whether the view taken by the Learned Single Judge whether all workmen were required to enter the witness box and on failure thereof, the benefit of reinstatement could not be extended to them. 9. Admittedly, only two of the workmen who have been given the benefit of reinstatement had entered into the witness box and have given evidence. The evidence was not limited to themselves, but was also evidence on behalf of the rest of the workmen as the proceeding brought before the Labour Court and the Industrial Court was also in representative capacity besides the said workmen also having been made a party. 10. The admitted position is that because the Company became sick, went before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ('BIFR') and facing difficult economic situation, they decided to retrench workmen across the Board without any kind of pick and choose involved therein. The retrenchment is not a matter of dispute. Non-payment of compensation is also not a matter of dispute because evidence thereof has come and as already opined in earlier part of order. Putting all the workmen in the dock would have only meant repetitive kind of evidence coming on these two basic facts that there was an illegal retrenchment resorted to whatever be the reason or justification given by the Management and that compensation was not paid. 11. Once a finding emerges that the retrenchment was illegal, reinstatement was a natural corollary with back wages. 12. We are satisfied therefore that the learned Single Judge has committed an error by setting aside and limiting the benefit of reinstatement to only two of employees named therein. We hold that except for those workmen, who have already accepted their compensation on the basis of offer made by the employer. the rest of the employees who are 13 in number will be entitled to reinstatement with all back wages and consequential benefits. 13. Appeal stands allowed. Impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 09.01.2018 to that extent stands set aside." 11. In such circumstances, referred to above, the company is here before this Court with the present appeals. 12. Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant - Company at the outset brought to our notice that the Company has been able to settle the dispute with 49 employees. In such circumstances, referred to above, the company is here before this Court with the present appeals. 12. Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant - Company at the outset brought to our notice that the Company has been able to settle the dispute with 49 employees. However, the employees who are before us, did not deem fit to settle the matter and continued with the litigation. Today, we have 13 employees before us. 13. According to Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, the Company might have been able to revive but still it is not in that strong position financially so as to bear the burden of the Award which has been passed in favour of the workmen. 14. On the other hand, Mr. Ravi Prakash Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently submitted that the financial position of the Company is very sound. According to Mr. Gupta, during the covid period, the Company was able to do extremely well as it is in the business of manufacturing medical oxygen. 15. He would submit that out of 13 workmen, 2 workmen are entitled to reinstatement with back wages, whereas the other 11 workmen have attained the age of superannuation. 16. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, we are of the view that we should put an end to this litigation once and for all. There is no sense asking the parties to go back to the Labour Court. 17. We are of the view that reinstatement of the two employees is now out of question as many years have passed by. They must be gainfully employed somewhere else. 18. We direct the appellant - Company to pay to each of the 13 workmen an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- towards full and final settlement of the dispute. 19. After due consideration of all the pros and cons of the matter, we have fixed this amount of Rs.8,00,000/-. 20. One of the basis for arriving at this figure is that the other workmen almost 49 in numbers settled all the disputes with the Management and each of those workmen received an amount Rs.1,00,000/- sometime in the year 2010. 21. Keeping the aforesaid in mind, the amount of Rs.8,00,000/- is reasonable. 22. 20. One of the basis for arriving at this figure is that the other workmen almost 49 in numbers settled all the disputes with the Management and each of those workmen received an amount Rs.1,00,000/- sometime in the year 2010. 21. Keeping the aforesaid in mind, the amount of Rs.8,00,000/- is reasonable. 22. The settlement arrived at between the Company and workmen reduced into writing dated 23-3-2010 has also been looked into by us. 23. The appellant shall deposit an amount of Rs.1 Crore and 4 Lakh with the concerned Labour Court within a period of 8 weeks from today. 24. Once this amount is deposited, the Labour Court, after due verification and identification shall disburse the amount, to each of the 13 workmen i.e. Rs.8,00,000/- within a period of four weeks in accordance with our directions. It is possible that some of the workmen might have died. In such circumstances therefore, if the legal heirs come forward, the amount of Rs.8,00,000/- be paid to them after due verification and identification. 25. With the aforesaid, the appeals are disposed of. 26. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.