- (1.) Challenge is laid in both writ petitions to the orders passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner under Section 6-H(1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, dated 6.6.2016, whereby the authority concerned has reviewed its previous orders passed in the matter on 1st October, 2015.
(2.) A perusal of the record goes to show that an industrial dispute was raised at the instance of the respondent workmen, which came to be registered as Adjudication Case No.99 of 1982. Proceedings for recovery under Section 6-H(2) were also initiated in Misc. Case No.30 of 1984, and both matters came to be decided finally by the Labour Court on 30th September, 1985. It gave rise to filing of Writ Petition Nos.3982 of 1986 and 3983 of 1986. The writ petitions were disposed of by this Court on 5th February, 2009. It appears that modification applications were thereafter filed being Application Nos.97252 of 2009 and 97253 of 2009, both of which came to be disposed of by this Court on 15th January, 2013. Operative portion of the order dated 15.1.2013 reads as under:- "Accordingly, as the petitioners had been reinstated hence order dated 5.2.2009 is modified. There is no question of granting back wages. However, as petitioners were taken back in service and continued to work for 22 years till the closure of the mill hence there is no question of disturbing the reinstatement order passed through impugned award. Accordingly, it is directed that since the date of reinstatement which according to workmen was 17.11.1985 the workmen shall be paid such amounts which were paid to other similarly situate employees of the same Mill as retaining allowance and bonus. If other employees of the mill in question have been offered or are offered benefit of V.R.S. scheme the same benefit may be extended to the workmen in this writ petition who have not yet crossed the age of retirement. Direction for payment of Rs.35,000/- to each workman is recalled. Modification applications are disposed of. Judgement and orders dated 5.2.2009 are modified accordingly."
(3.) It appears that while the issue relating to the award as well as proceedings upon modification were pending, the sugar factory, which initially belonged to U.P. State Sugar and Cane Development Corporation, came to be transferred pursuant to a slump sale agreement in favour of respondent no.2 i.e. M/s Dynamics Sugar Private Ltd. The respondent no.2 accordingly moved an application and sought its impleadment in pending proceedings before this Court, which was allowed. The order passed by this Court on 15th January, 2013 has been assailed by respondent no.2 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) CC No.12606 of 2013, in which delay has been condoned on 13th December, 2013, and notices were issued. It is agreed between the parties that the SLP against the order of this Court dated 15th January, 2013 continues to remain pending.;