V.R. KRISHNA IYER, J.
1. We are inclined to think that the Order of this Court dated February 27, 1978 needs some clarification so that the Deputy Labour Commissioner may correct any error in implementation that might have crept in.
2. The facts need not be recounted now except to state that the sum of Rs 1,50,000 was meant to be a solatium for those who suffered as a result of the closure of a section of the factory. The question then is: who are the employees who lost their employment as a result of the closure? The Deputy Labour Commissioner must identify them i.e. those who became victims of the closure. The enquiry there is not as to how many were shown on the attendance rolls or registers of the section on the date of closure; for some might have been given alternative jobs in some other section of the factory. It might even be that while formally terminating their employment in the closed section they might have been de facto continued in another section. The compensation is not meant for them as the blow has not fallen on them. So, merely because they were on the roster of the locked-out unit on the closure date they were not entitled to compensation. But it is also likely that on retrenchment some workmen might have been given fresh employment in some other unit. If their retrenchment was real and not a mask, if their fresh employment was, in fact and in substance, a new employment, not a modified continuation of the old but with the appearance of termination by payment of terminal benefits — then they should not be denied compensation. This aspect requires close scrutiny, not a superficial paper verification.
3. We direct the Deputy Labour Commissioner to keep his report as the basis and then to re-examine the cases objected to by the respondent Union (U.P. Automobile Workers' Union) from the point of view we have explained. An opportunity to substantiate their objections will be given to the Union and all the affected workmen. The decision should be made on or before April 10, 1980.