The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons should be treated alike by extending the same benefit, subject to exceptions of laches, delays, and acquiescence.

JUDGMENT :

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

Both these petitions have been filed for common relief which reads thus:

"(i) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may be issued and the award dated 17.1.2006, Annexure P-1 passed by learned Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla under reference No. 129/2000 be quashed and set-aside.

(ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued directing the respondent to extend the same benefits to the present petitioners also as have been extended to other similarly situated workmen as per the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in LPA No. 69/2008."

2. The issue of progressive deconcentration of population and economic activities within the National Capital Region (Delhi), in terms of Master Plan for Delhi 1962 and National Capital Region Plan-2001, came up for consideration before the Apex Court in W.P. (C) No. 4677 of 1985, titled as M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India and others., (1996) 4 SCC 750. Vide judgment dated 8.7.1996, , Apex Court inter alia held that certain industrial units, including that of the appellant set up under the name of M/s Birla Textile Mills, being a hazardous/noxious/heavy/large industry falling within the category of H(a) and H(b) of the Delhi Master Plan, was to be closed w.e.f. 30.11.1996 and re-located outside Delhi. With regard to the workmen employed by the Industry, following directions pertaining to their rights/benefits were issued:-

"28.......

(9) The workmen employed in the above mentioned 168 industries shall be entitled to the rights and benefits as indicated hereunder :-

(a) The workmen shall have continuity of employment at the new town and place where the industry is shifted. The terms and conditions of their employment shall not be altered to their detriment;

(b) The period between the closure of the industry in Delhi and its restart at the place of relocation shall be treated as active employment and the workmen shall be paid their full wages with continuity of service;

(c) All those workmen who agree to shift with the industry shall be given one years wages as "shifting bonus" to help them settle at the new location".

(d) 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 November 30, 1996 provided they have been in continuous service (as defined in Section 25B 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 year wages as additional compensation;

(e) The "shifting bonus" and the compensation payable to the workmen in terms of this judgment shall be paid by the management before December 31, 1996.

(f) The gratuity amount payable to any workmen shall be paid in addition."

3. These directions were partly modified by the Apex Court in terms of its order dated 4.12.1996, [M.C.Mehta vs. Union of India and others, (1997) 11 SCC 327], to the extent that words "one year wages" in direction 9 (d) were substituted with "six years wages".

4. The appellant-Company (referred to as the 'management') decided to relocate its mill/unit at Baddi in the State of Himachal Pradesh. With the relocation of the Unit, option to join at Baddi was left to the workmen already employed in Delhi. Certain issues with regard to interpretation of the aforesaid directions crept in between the management and the workmen, which led to filing of various applications, including contempt petitions before the Apex Court and in terms of order dated 18.12.1998, titled as M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India and others, (1999) 2 SCC 91, they were disposed of with a direction to the management to accept joining of the workmen on 14.1.1999. However, these were applicable but to such workmen who had exercised their option to join at Bad