Important Point
The impugned order of the High Court is not sustainable in law and is thus set aside. Writ Petition No. 2020/2001 is restored to the file of High Court to be decided on merits expeditiously. In the light of order of the High Court in W.P. 2206/1997, 1996(6) Supreme 542 and 2001(1) Supreme 523.

Judgment

Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.—Leave is granted in S.L.P. (C) No. 7680 of 2001

2. This appeal is directed against the order of a Division Bench of the High Court of judicature at Bombay (for short, ‘the High Court’) in W.P.No.2020 of 2001 dated on April 16, 2001. The first appellant is Government of India Undertaking and the second appellant is its General Manager (P & A). The respondent is the union of the workmen of the first appellant.

3. This case has a checkered history. It started with filing of W.P. No. 2206 of 1997 in the High Court by the workmen of the first appellant which ended with the judgment of this Court in Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. & Anr. v. Shramik Sena & Ors.1. In connection with the interpretation of the said judgment two writ petitions were filed. The second of which gave rise to C.A.No.892 of 2001 which was allowed by this Court on January 29, 2001*. Purporting to give effect to the judgment of the High Court in Writ Petition No.2206 of 1997 and in terms of condition (e) therein the appellants intimated to 68 employees through a letter dated April 9, 2001 (which was subsequently corrected as April 10, 2001) that their services were retrenched enclosing a cheque for the amounts payable on retrenchment. The validity of the said letter was challenged by the respondent before the High Court in Writ Petition No. 2020 of 2001 which was disposed of by the order impugned in this appeal.

4. The respondent filed I.A.No.2 of 2001 in C.A. No. 892 of 2001, praying for clarification of the Judgment of this Court made in the said appeal on January 29, 2001.

5. Mr. T.R. Andhyarujina, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, contended that the judgment of this Court dated January 29, 2001 required no clarification and that the High Court ought to have dismissed the writ petition as the retrenchment and payment of compensation were in accordance with condition (e) contained in the order of the High Court which was confirmed by the Supreme Court.

6. Mr. K.K. Singhvi, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, argued that the appellant having wrongly construed the judgment of this Court dated January 29, 2001, and without a valid retrenchment sent the retrenchment compensation which was, however, not received by the employees; the order being in violation of Section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as well as the judgment of this Court dated January 29, 2001, the letter of retrenchment deserved to be quashed. He submitted that in view of the observation of the High Court that the right course for the writ petitioner (respondent herein) would be to approach the Apex Court to seek clarification of the said judgment, the respondent filed the application for clarification of the judgment.

7. The question that arises for consideration is : whether the impugned order of the High Court is sustainable in law.

8. We have perused the impugned order of the High Court. We are unable to appreciate the approach of the High Court. Even when it was faced with diametrically apposite interpretation of the judgment of this Court, it was expected of the High Court to decide the case (writ petition) on merit according to its own interpretation of the said judgment. Instead the High Court after referring to rival contentions of the parties, in para 3, observed thus:

“In our view, the right course for the Petitioner will be to approach the Apex Court and to seek a clarification of the said order. Mr. Singhvi is agreeable to take necessary steps.”

And having directed the appellants herein to take back the employees for a period of four months or until order is passed by this Court whichever is earlier, disposed of the writ petition.

9. While disposing of Writ Petition No. 2206 of 1997 in the first round of litigation the High Court ordered absorption of the employees subject to conditions (a) to (e) referred to therein. On appeal to this Court the judgment of the High Co