Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Sri Vinod Upadhyay, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Ritvik Updhyay for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1 and 3. Initially, Sri P.C. Jhingam had put in appearance and filed counter-affidavit and after his death notice was issued to respondent No. 2 to engage another counsel vide order dated 21.10.2011. None has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2 though the case has been called in revised list.

2. The writ petition is directed against the award dated 29th April 1991 of Industrial Tribunal-I, U.P. at Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in Adjudication Case No. 40 of 1989 whereby the Tribunal has directed the petitioner i.e., M/S Hindalco Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the employer”) to pay 10% of the basic pay towards house allowance to workers who are not provided housing accommodation by the employer, from the date of their appointment till such time housing accommodation is not offered to them.

3. Respondent No. 2 is a union of workers of Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Limited, Renukoot, in district Sonbhadra. An industrial dispute was raised by the Union that some of the workers who are not provided with housing accommodation should be provided house rent allowance. A reference was made for adjudication of the above dispute vide State Government notification dated 1.5.1989 under Section 4-K of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act to the following effect:

“Kya Sewayojkon dwara apne kuchh shrmikon ko avas suvidha athva avas bharra na diya jana uchit tatha/athva baidhanik hai? Yadi nahin, to sambandhit shramika kya laabh/kshatpurti paane ke adhikari hai, kis tithi se tatha anya kis vivaran sahit?”

“Whether non-providing of housing facility or housing allowance by the employer to some of its workmen is justified and/or legal. If not, whether the concerned workmen are entitled to any benefit or compensation and from which date and with what details.” (English translation by Court)

4. It is this reference which has been answered by the Tribunal in favour of workmen as said above.

5. The area in which the petitioner’s industrial establishment is established was basically a forest area in which about more than 50 years ago, on the initiative taken by State Government and the management of the petitioner’s industrial establishment, a heavy industry was set up with multiple objectives of contributing to the national resources and also providing development and employment to local inhabitants. The adjacent area was mostly inhabited by Adivasis and other very poor rural inhabitants. It is the establishment of the large industrial undertaking HINDALCO which increased employment potential in the area attracting a huge labour force from the adjacent area as also the distant ones. The basic requirement i.e. establishment of industry obviously is to be catered first and therefore, land became available to the petitioner was mostly used for establishing industrial undertakings. Besides thereto, some residential accommodation had also been constructed including schools, playgrounds etc. Some residential accommodation has been constructed for the benefit of State’s administrative departments which is again for the larger benefit of the industrial working force in petitioner’s industry, which at the time of dispute in question was about 15000/-.

6. Outside industrial establishment, private residential accommodation was scanty and virtually people find it very difficult to get a suitable accommodation in and around 70 KM area in which the industry is situated. Since the accommodation available with the industry is limited, the management followed principle of seniority for allocating residential accommodation to labourers. Such accommodation is provided free of cost subject to charge of nominal amount towards maintenance.

7. The case of the workmen is that since the housing accommodation having been provided free of cost to some of the workers while