S.N.VARIAVA, J.

(1) 219 workmen were retrenched by the appellant company. 108 workmen challenged the same by raising an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to Labour Court. By a common award made on August 3, 1987 the Labour Court rejected the Reference. 28 workmen preferred three sets of petitions before the High Court and those proceedings ultimately ended up in a compromise between the parties in a Letters Patent Appeal before the High Court.

(2) 12 workmen preferred Writ Petition No. 4047/1990 on March 18, 1990. The High Court, dismissed the same on the ground of laches. 10 workmen preferred a special leave petition before this Court and this Court set aside the order made by the High Court and remitted the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with law. That writ petition was allowed holding that the retrenchment is bad for not complying with Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thereafter, the matter was carried to this Court in which leave was granted and order made by, the High Court stood stayed.

(3) ANOTHER Writ Petition No. 8866/1991 filed by a batch of six workmen on July 18, 1991 came to be dismissed on the ground of laches. Against that order special leave petition was preferred before this Court and that special leave petition also stood dismissed.

(4) TWO workmen preferred Writ Petition No. 2739/1991 on February 25, 1991 which - also stood dismissed on the ground of laches. Against that order a special leave petition was preferred before this Court on February 26, 1991 which was disposed of by an order dated January 2, 1996.

(5) ANOTHER set of 9 workmen preferred Writ Petition No. 12482/1991 on December 3, 1992 challenging the said award which again was dismissed and that matter was not carried any further and became final.

(6) ON August 8, 1991 in Writ Petition No. 13419/1991, two workmen preferred the writ petition challenging the said award which was allowed by the High Court holding the retrenchment to be bad for the same reasons as stated in Writ Petition No. 4047/1990. Against this order special leave petition has been preferred by the company. Leave was granted and that order made by the High Court stood stayed.

(7) IN these proceedings we are concerned with fourteen writ petitioners in proceedings arising out of Writ Petition No. 4047/1990 and Writ Petition No. 13419/1991. We are not 5 concerned with other proceedings to which we have adverted to now.

(8) MR.M.L. Verma, learned senior advocate appearing for the company did not address so much on the merits of the matter as to impress upon us that there was certain uncertainty in the state of law as to whether the appellant had to obtain permission from the Government under Section 25-N of the -Industrial Disputes Act or not certain decisions favouring that view and certain other decisions opining to the contrary. In those circumstances, the appellant had not obtained the permission of the Government and that has led to the present predicament. Further while the challenge of some of the writ petitioners have been upheld some have been dismissed on ground of laches and those orders have become final. He emphasised that most workmen have gone away with retrenchment, it is only in case of these fourteen workmen matter is still hanging fire. He brought to our notice that the appellant is in financial doldrums and is facing proceedings before the BIFRunder the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act and, therefore, is in difficulty to give effect to the order made by the High Court. In his submission appropriate course is to examine the question of adequately compensating the - respondents in these cases and putting a quietus to the matter.

(9) MR. Prag Tripathi, learned senior advocate for the respondents submitted that inasmuch as the workmen waited for long years it is not appropriate to disappoint them by denying the relief granted