Hon’ble D.P. Singh, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.N. Kushwaha holding brief of Sri A.K. Gautam, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2.

2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 1.9.2006 allowing the application of the workman under Section 33-C(2) of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

3. The petitioner Mill was earlier a private enterprise but when it closed down, firstly its Management was taken over and thereafter the Mill was nationalised under the Sick Textile Undertaking (Nationalization) Act, 1974. The effect of nationalization was that the petitioner Mill along with its entire property stood vested in the Central Government under Section 3 (1) of the Nationalisation Act and under Section 3 (2), it stood transferred and vested in the Nationalisation Textile Corporation whereafter it was transferred to its subsidiary known as National Textile Corporation (U.P. Ltd.) with effect from 1.4.1974.

4. The respondent workman was appointed on temporary basis as peon in the petitioner Mill in 1981 but his services were retrenched with effect from 6.9.1983 which led to a reference which was registered as Adjudication No. 318 of 1984. The Labour Court vide its award dated 29.7.1987, finding that there was violation of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, held the termination to be illegal and directed his reinstatement with back wages. In compliance of the said award, he was reinstated on 3.12.1987 and was paid his entire back wages.

5. Despite pumping large amounts of money by the Central Government into the Mill, its production deteriorated by every passing year and when the financial support from the Central Government was stopped, it resulted into closing of the production in the Mill from 1.4.1991. Subsequently, the Mill was completely closed down with effect from 9/11.3.2004 with the due permission of the Central Government under the Industrial Disputes Act.

6. 11 Units of the Subsidiary Corporation, including the petitioner Mill was declared sick and the matter was referred to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction where a reference No. 504 of 1993 was registered. The Board vide its order dated 21.3.2002 framed rehabilitation scheme under which 9 mills out of the 11, including the petitioner Mill, were proposed to be closed and it was directed to float a Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Earlier, a Voluntary Retirement Scheme was invoked with effect from 14.8.1992, but in view of the directions of the Board, a Modified Voluntary Retirement Scheme (here-in-after referred to as M.V.R.S.) was introduced which became effective in the Mill with effect from 13.6.2002. Earlier the scheme benefited only the regular employees who had worked for 240 days but thereafter it was amended and made applicable even to the temporary and daily wagers also.

7. The scheme was displayed on the notice board of the Mill when nearly all the employees, including the workman opted under it. The respondent workman moved an application on 12.7.2002 under the aforesaid M.V.R.S. which was duly accepted by the Mill vide order dated 31.10.2002 with effect from 1.11.2002 and in pursuance thereof he was paid a sum of Rs. 2,67,791/-, including the amount of ex-gratia and he gave a declaration dated 18.11.2002 that he had received all his amount due and no claim remained outstanding against it.

8. However, after expiry of about eight months, the workman made an application under Section 33-C (2) before the Authority appointed for the said purpose under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act claiming that he has not been paid his entire ex-gratia and a sum of Rs. 30,921/- still remains outstanding. The Authority registered it as Misc. Case No. 11 of 2003. A detailed reply was filed by the petitioner Mill stating that once the workman had accepted the benefit under the M.V.R.S. and had executed the declaration of no dues or claim, the relationship of master and servant between the parties had ceased. The pet