By consent, heard finally. The Background events are:

2 On 16 April, 2002, Erstwhile PCD Unit of NOCIL (formerly National Organic Chemicals Ltd.) practically closed due to financial difficulties.

3 On 20 March, 2003, a Closure permission was granted by the State Government to NOCIL under Section 25O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the ID Act), but this was set aside by consent before the High Court and the matter was remanded. Later, the permission was once again granted on 20 March 2003. On 31 January 2004, the Industrial Tribunal set aside closure permission under Section 25-O(5). Writ Petition No.5046 of 2004 filed by NOCIL to challenge Industrial Tribunal's order was admitted and pending. NOCIL had also filed a Company petition for demerger of the PCD Unit from the Company, which is also pending.

4 On 11 September, 2004, a Tripartite memorandum of understanding (MOU) between NOCIL, the unions (NOCIL Employees' Union and PIL Employees Union), and Relene Petrochemicals Ltd for take over of PCD Unit (Relene). The MOU provided that NOCIL would offer VRS to all its employees (Plan “A” or Plan “B”), after which Relene would offer fresh employment subject to medical fitness as well as successful completion of institutional/residential training.

5 On 23 September 2004, some employees including the Petitioners took VRS Plan A and ceased to be an employee of NOCIL and thereafter applied for fresh employment with the Respondent Company subject to being declared medically fit. On being declared medically unfit the Petitioners were given the benefits of VRS Plan B, amounting to Rs.4.5 lakhs. They recovered it also. In 2004, Writ Petition No.5046 of 2004 was disposed of in terms of tripartite MOU dated 11 September, 2004.

6 On 4 January 2005, early separation Plan was declared by the Respondent Company for the purpose of rightsizing its labour force in the erstwhile PCD Unit of NOCIL.

7 On 5 January, 2005, a strike notice was issued for demands raised by the recognised union in respect of dismissed workmen and medically unfit ex-workmen of NOCIL. The demands were admitted in Conciliation and proceedings went on before the Deputy Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer.

8 On 14 January, 2005 a letter was issued by one Shri Prasad Tokekar clarifying that there was no substance in rumours that the management would grant additional financial compensation at a later date and assuring that if any additional financial compensation is offered to dismissed employees or to those who opt for separation later, the same will be offered “to those who take benefit of the instant Early Separation Plan, as well as those who have separated earlier under NOCIL VRS Plan B.”.

9 Admittedly, on 18 June, 2005, a conciliation Settlement signed under Section 12(3) read with 18(3) by which the recognised union and company agreed that a full and final increase of Rs. 2.34 lac per workman would be paid over and above VRS Plan A and VRS Plan B given by NOCIL. By this tripartite Conciliation Settlement, all workmen, whether they had taken both VRS Plans A & B, or had taken VRS Plan A and opted for employment with Relene, or had been found medically unfit or had been dismissed for non-participation in training, were brought on par by being paid a gross total of Rs. 6 lacs, minus the amount of VRS already received. Thus, those who had taken Plan A and B received a top-up amount of Rs.2.34 lac to bring their total to Rs.6 lac, while those who had not taken VRS earlier, were paid the full amount of Rs. 6 lac.

10 On 13 July, 2005, pursuant to applications dated 18.6.2005 and undertakings given by the Petitioners received Rs. 2.34 lac as per Conciliation Settlement dated 18.6.2005. Similarly, all others covered by 18.6.2005 Settlement received their respective amounts in June-July 2005.

11 On 15 November 2006, almost one and a half years later, Respondent Company and the recognised union arrived at a MOU by which they agreed that the erstwhil