1. Rule. By consent of the parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

2. The petition challenges the order of the Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No.838 of 2000 allowing the complaint filed by the respondent workmen. The order passed by the Industrial Court in revision application (ULP) No.267 of 2005 has also been challenged in this petition since it confirms the order of the Labour Court.

3. The facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows: The petitioner is the Proprietress of an establishment known as M/s.Sarat Indian registered under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘management’). The management is engaged in the manufacturing and sale of melamine crockery. Undisputedly, Respondent No.1 has been working with the management from January 1984 whereas Respondent No.2 has worked since August 1986. The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the workman) were issued notices on 16.8.2000 informing them that since the availability of work for the management was scarce, their services were being retrenched from 21.9.2000. Individual letters were issued to Respondent Nos.1