Ashok Kumar Mathur,C.J. - (1.) Both these appeals arise against the order passed by a learned single Judge dated 11th May, 2001 whereby he disposed of two writ petitions, that is, W.P. No. 1077(W) of 1999 and W. P. No. 11986(W) of 1999. Both the writ petitions were clubbed up together as it involved common question of law, therefore both these appeals are also disposed of by common order.
(2.) The only question which was pressed before the learned Judge was that the writ petitioners should be given the same benefit in terms of the decision of this Court given in the case of F. M. A. 346 of 1997. The question was, whether the petitioners are entitled to Industrial Dearness Allowance (I. D. A. for short) or Central Dearness Allowance (C.D. A. for short). The learned single Judge held that the respondent-Company in their return has not given any reason that why the benefit of the aforesaid judgment be not given to the writ-petitioners. It was only stated by the management in their affidavit-in-opposition that the petitioners are not similarly circumstanced therefore they are not entitled to the benefit as was given in the Division Bench judgment. The learned single Judge on this basis came to the conclusion that there is no reason why similar benefit be not given to the petitioners. He however observed that since the company sick and issue of revival is pending before the B. I. F. R. and any financial implication of giving financial burden of the Company may be approved or sanctioned from the B. I. F. R. Accordingly both the writ petitions were disposed of.
(3.) Aggrieved against this, the present appeal has been filed. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.;