IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.7917 of 1992 (O&M) Date of decision : .10.11.2010 Paras Nath Sharma and others … Petitioners Versus Union of India and others …Respondents CWP No.5766 of 1992 (O&M) Date of decision : .10.11.2010 Modern Food Industries Workers Union and another … Petitioners Versus Union of India and others …Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice M.M.Kumar Hon’ble Ms.Justice Ritu Bahri Present: Mr.Ashim Aggarwal, Advocate for the applicant-respondent No.4. Mr.Maharaja Kumar Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr.B.R.Mahajan, Advocate for the non-applicant-petitioner. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.Kumar, J. This order shall dispose of CWP No.7917 of 1992 and CWP No.5766 of 1992 as common question of law and facts involved in both these cases. CM No.13579 of 2010 This is an application filed by respondent No.4 with a prayer for early disposal of the writ petition as the parties reached at a consensus so that petition stands rendered infructuous. Accordingly with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, both the application and writ petitions have been taken up for final disposal. According to the averments made in para 4 in the application, the factory belonging to respondent No.4 stands closed on 15.3.2005 and all the workers had availed the benefit under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS). The averments further reveal that the company-respondent No.4 has CWP No.7917 of 1992 and CWP No.5766 of 1992 ceased to exist w.e.f. 9.2.20007 by virtue of its amalgamation with M/s Hindustan Unilever Limited and as such, neither the employees nor the petitioner Unions exist. In para 5, the averment made is that the prayer made in the writ petition has been rendered infructuous with the passage of time, because the limit under the E.S.I. Act has been increased to Rs.15,000/-. Notice of the application was given. Mr.B.R.Mahajan, Advocate appearing on behalf of the non- applicant-petitioner has put in appearance and has stated that factory in fact stands closed and has further amalgamated with M/s Hindustan Unilever Limited. However, he further states that the factum of granting benefits under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) to the non-applicant-petitioner could not be verified as the workman-respondents are not accessible. In view of the above facts and the averments made in the application which are duly supported by the affidavit filed by authorized signatory of M/s Hindustan Unilever Limited, we are of the view that writ petition has been rendered infructuous and does not survive for adjudication. However, we grant liberty to the non-applicant-petitioner to move an appropriate application for review of this order if the averments made in the application are not found to be correct. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. A photo copy of this order be placed on the file of connected case. (M.M.Kumar ) Judge (Ritu Bahri) Judge 10.11.2010 2 CWP No.7917 of 1992 and CWP No.5766 of 1992 sd 3