Judgment

M. Jagannadha Rao, J.-Contempt Petition No. 61 of 1999 has been filed by the Workmen of M/s. Birla Textiles (Prop. Texmaco Ltd., Calcutta) for punishing the four respondents who are incharge of the management of the Industry, on the ground of wilful disobedience of the direc­tions of this Court dated 18.12.1998 in Interlocutory Application No. 202 in IA No. 22 in Writ Petition No. 4677 of 1985. Contempt Petition No. 72 of 1999 is a similar petition by the All India Textile Mazdoor Janta Union. Similar Contempt Petition No. 92 of 1999 is filed by two petitioners, namely, the Kapra Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union and one Kan­chan Singh. Interlocutory Application by Nawal Kishore Misra in Con­tempt Petition No. 532 of 1997 in Writ Petition No. 4677 of 1985 is taken on Board. Interlocutory Application Nos. 624-628, 160, 201-203 are filed by the Birla Textiles in IA 22 and 36 in Writ Petition No. 4677 of 1985 for extension of time for payment of the amounts ordered by this Court on 18.12.1998 in the judgment of this Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.1.

2. When the matters came up before us on 1.2.1999, we directed an interim payment of Rs. 30,000/- to the workmen, ‘on account’ as the Mill was not admittedly functional.

3. In the judgment of this Court dated 18.12.1998 the earlier history of this litigation has been set out in detail and, therefore, we do not propose to refer to the same again. The orders and directions given by this Court in that order can be summarised as follows:

(1) that the management will allow all workmen (except those who exercised or would exercise an option not to rejoin) to rejoin at Baddi.

(2) All such workmen who report at Baddi on 14.1.1999 and 15-1-1999 and sign or put their thumb-mark in a register before the two designated Dy. Labour Commissioners, shall be entitled to the benefits of the orders of this Court dated 8.7.96 and subsequent orders in respect of continuity, backwages from date of closure of the industry till date of rejoining, in addition to one year’s wages towards shifting bonus. The said amount will be paid by the Industry to each workman, within one, week of the workmen rejoining at Baddi.

(3) In respect of workmen who do not so report by 15.1.1999 or who otherwise give it in writing to the nominated authority that they are not willing to rejoin, they shall be deemed to have been re­trenched w.e.f. 30.11.1996 and shall be entitled only to one year’s wages and also to Section 25F(b) compensation as per the orders of this Court dated 8.7.1996. The said amounts shall be disbursed to these employees within one week from 15.1.1999 by the Industry.

The above directions, it will be noticed, were given by this Court on the assumption that the factory at Baddi was fully functional. Other­wise, this Court would not have passed an order that “all” the workmen who desired to rejoin at Baddi should be allowed to rejoin and be paid as aforesaid. Learned senior counsel who appeared before us at that time for the industry also proceeded on the above basis. But what happened after the workmen reported at Baddi on 15.1.1999 and 16.1.1999 is indeed very unfortunate. The factory was not functional and the workmen waited in biting cold not knowing what to do. The amounts payable to them were not disbursed on the ground of the industry filing a fresh writ petition in this Court challenging judicial orders. We were informed that one workman died on account of the acute cold weather and several others fell ill. In our order dated 1.2.1999, we recorded that the workmen had to come back as the Mill was not functional and no gate passes were issued to them. We, therefore, directed that, in respect of all workmen who reported at Baddi (as evidenced by the register maintained by the Labour Commis­sioners), a sum of Rs. 30,000 be paid `on account’ without prejudice to the rights of parties. We are informed that this sum has since been paid.

4. We may state