The Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 prevails over prior agreements, enforcing conditions under Section 25F for retrenchment, thus nullifying conflicting claims based on earlier settlements.

JUDGMENT :

SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.

1. The writ application has been preferred challenging the order dated 31^st May, 2011 passed by the learned Judge, First Labour Court, West Bengal.

2. 35 applicants before the First Labour Court, West Bengal, Kolkata filed applications under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, alleging therein that they were all staff of the erstwhile Titagarh Paper Mills Company Limited, working in the head office of the said erstwhile Titagarh Paper Mills Company Limited at 95, Park Street, Kolkata- 700016. 2016.

3. The case of the petitioner is that:-

(a) Titagarh Paper Mills Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the company") became sick and was referred to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) for its revival in terms of the provisions of The Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.

(b) In terms of the scheme sanctioned by the BIFR on 17th November, 1994 in respect of the company, the said company was merged with Titagarh Steels Limited, whereby all liabilities of the erstwhile company was to be met by Titagarh Steels Limited (which, on the date of passing of the order impugned was known as Titagarh Industries Limited).

(c) The sanctioned scheme of the BIFR provided that all employees of the company would be retrenched with effect from the date of the scheme, i.e. 17th November, 1994 under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The applicants alleged that the company retrenched its employees with effect from 4th November, 1994 without complying with the condition precedent of retrenchment as provided in Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, i.e. one month notice pay and compensation as per law.

(d) Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the BIFR, four operating units of the company went in appeal against the order dated 30th August, 1995. The scheme was remanded back to the BIFR for reconstruction/reconsideration but nothing materialized.

4. In the aforesaid facts, the 35 applicants filed their respective applications under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act for computation of their benefits, inter-alia, for notice pay under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, LTA for the year 1993-1994, medical aid as per clause 15(3) of the settlement dated 21st October, 1981, leave wages for 56 days as per clause 6(3) of the settlement, bonus under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 for the years 1993-1994 and 1994-1995 retiral benefit for four months wages as per clause 11(5) of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 21st October, 1981.

5. The Labour Court upon hearing the said applications which were contested by the petitioner has allowed the said applications.

6. The petitioner has challenged the said order of the Labour Court on the ground that the Labour Court erred in fact and law in passing the order impugned.

7. It is stated by the petitioner that, Section 32 of The Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA) provides that the provisions of SICA or of any schemes made thereunder would prevail over anything that is contained in any instrument that is inconsistent with the provisions of SICA, 1985 or any scheme made thereunder.

8. The claims made by the applicants are based primarily on a Memorandum of Settlement dated 21st October, 1981 entered into by and between the erstwhile management of the company and its workmen.

9. Admittedly the said Memorandum of Settlement predates the scheme. It is thus asserted that in view of the ad