S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.

1. In this group of matters, the main matters i.e. Special Civil Applications have arisen on account of dispute between the employer and its workmen on various aspects, which gave rise to the Industrial Dispute, which came to be referred to the Competent Tribunal at the relevant time. All these matters have been appearing upon the original proceedings and developments and incidents arising therefrom, therefore, they were always listed together and were heard and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The difference and dispute, as it is stated hereinabove, is in respect of the employer and workmen or their heirs and therefore, the historic background in which the development of events took place would require to be adverted to in order to appreciate the real controversy and parties' approach, conduct and their stand taken in these matters time and again. Therefore, the facts as could be gathered from these matters deserve to be set out herebelow, and thereafter individual matters, prayers and contentions could be set out, that would make things clear and more elucidating for appreciating the controversy in question.

3. The employer is a Company registered under the Companies Act and engaged in manufacturing activities. The workmen are in the employment of the Company. Both the parties under the provisions of Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the I.D. Act' for short), arrived at a settlement, which was reduced into writing and executed on 27.10.2003 by and on behalf of the employer Company and workmen. The said settlement executed in terms of Section 2(p) of the I.D. Act refers to a memorandum of understanding arrived at between the parties, which was also in the nature of 2P settlement only on 22.6.2002. It also referred to about earlier Memorandum of Understanding dated 5.5.2002 so that the Company may overcome its financial crisis and help around 3112 employees - workmen engaged by the Company. It may not be out of place to mention here that the said 2P settlement recites in its beginning that the settlement was required to be executed on account of financial crisis pleaded by the employer as even at that time also about 3112 employees workmen were being provided work by paying them wages only at 60% of rate and remaining employees workmen who could not be engaged were paid at 35% rate of original wages and there was likelihood of not providing 60% of those who are engaged. The employer did not pay the amount of gratuity payable to the workmen concerned, the PF and ESI dues etc. It was pleaded that the Company had huge financial liabilities towards Employees, Bankers Financial Institutions and other creditors. The agreement further recites that secured and unsecured creditors have agreed to sacrifice their interest to a large extent and the union/employees have also agreed to forgo large part of their dues. Thus, this was done with a view to sustain the employment of 3112 employees. The MOU and 2P settlement only contains recitals that company therefore decided to dispose of its surplus lands lying outside the factory so as to see that dues of the bankers and Financial institutions i.e. the secured creditors, were paid off their dues as per the settlement with the result that interest and other burdens which the Company was facing would be no longer payable which factor may enable the company to work as economically viable unit. The union was agreed to these terms as 3112 employees were to receive their sustenance by working with company and receiving wages.

3.1. It was provided for revising the pay structure, the allowance payable and company's liability to discharge its statutory responsibility qua employees on phased manner basis. It also contains a clause that so far as wages and dues of the workmen payable prior to December, 2003 were concerned