ORDER

1. This interlocutory application for directions has been filed by the Union of India. Mr Altaf Ahmed, learned Additional Solicitor General has raised the following contentions :

(1) The directions given by this Court in the order dated 10-5-1996 in M. C. Mehta V. Union of India regarding land-use - utilization of land available as a result of shifting/relocation/closure of hazardous/noxious/heavy/large industries from Delhi are applicable to those industries also which are not relocating and are simply closing themselves.

(2) The industries which are not relocating and intend to start new conforming industry/activity shall not be permitted to do that unless they protect the workmen and seek fresh permission to set up the industry from the Government and the Pollution Control Board/Committee. They shall have to obtain fresh electric and water connections.

(3) The package of compensation proposed for the workmen employed in the industries which are not relocating and are closing down is inadequate and needs to be enhanced.

(4) That the workmen who have not been provided residential accommodation by the employers be permitted to continue to occupy the same till accommodation is provided/made available at the relocated site. Such workmen employed with the industries which are not relocating should also be permitted to stay for a reasonable time.

2. So far as the first contention is concerned, learned Additional Solicitor General has taken us through the order of this Court in M. C. Mebta v. Union of India regarding land-use along with the order dated 8719962 regarding relocation of 168 industries. The intention of this Court is clear that the order regarding land re-use was both for relocating industries as well as those which decide to close down and not to relocate. The learned counsel for the industries have not disputed this interpretation. We, therefore, accept the contention of learned Additional Solicitor General. Nothing more need be said on this point.

3. We see considerable force in the contention of the learned Additional Solicitor General on the second point also. The existing hazardous industries a having been closed, what remains is the plot, superstructure and the workmen. The occupants of the plots and the owners of the industries which have been closed down shall have to undertake fresh procedure for setting up of a new industry. Needless to say that no industry can be set up which is not permitted under the Master Plan. The procedure required for setting up of a new industry shall have to be followed in every case. We make it clear that Government permission and the consent from the Pollution Control Board/Committee, if required under law, shall have to be obtained. Even fresh electric connection and water connection shall have to be applied for and obtained in the changed circumstances. We have no doubt when approached for necessary permission/licence/water/electric connections the authorities shall expedite in dealing with the applications.

4. So far as the third contention of the learned Additional Solicitor General is concerned, we may refer to Direction 9(d) of the order dated 8-7-19962 which is as under :

"The workmen employed in the industries which fail to relocate and the workmen who are not willing to shift along with the relocated industries, shall be deemed to have been retrenched with effect from 30-11-1996 provided they have been in continuous service (as defined in Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947) for not less than one year in the industries concerned before the said date. They shall be paid compensation in terms of Section 25-F (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. These workmen shall also be paid, in addition, one years wages as additional compensation."

5. We have heard Mr Rajinder Sachar, Mr Jitender Sharma, and other learned counsel appearing for the workmen. We have also heard Mr Deepankar Gupta, Mr Shanti Bhushan and other learned counsel for the industries.

6. W