Encouraged by this order, a large section of the 900 retired field force officers have written to the company seeking similar payments as awarded by the court to Rao, as the Supreme Court had specified that Rao will be a sample application.

However, the company's official spokesperson said the interim order is not a general guiding principle to make payments to all the retired field officers. The company has also added that the high court order was specific to Rao only as he had filed the petition.

From 1957 onwards, HLL has been making settlements for the field force officers. When the 1971 settlement expired the union submitted a fresh settlment in 1973. But HLL gave an unilateral order dated 1975 making changes in the dearness allowance, disturbance allowanceand terminal leave.

Since the company was not willing to comply with the union's demands, the union filed a complaint in the Industrial Court in April 1984. The Industrial court disposed off this complaint in 1995 upholding the union's demand.

The management, then moved the high court in appeal in 1995. The high court held that the company had indeed indulged in unfair labour practices but ruled that the company has the right to decide on payments.

The union, then moved the Supreme Court in 1996 against the Mumbai high court order. The company's, review petiton filed in the Supreme Court was also dismissed the same year. The company thus became liable to implement the order of the Industrial Court consequent ot the supreme court judgement.

Inspite of the apex court's ruling, the company did not make any payments. Subsequently, the employees union filed a contempt petition in the Supreme Court against the company in 1997.

Once again the Supreme Court, in January 1998, intervened directing theIndustrial Court to dispose off the pending execution complaint of Nagesha Rao within three months terming it as a sample application.

The execution applications of Nagesha Rao also filed a complaint in the Industrial Court under section 50 MRTU and PULP Act 1971 in the Industrial Court claiming arrears as announced originally by Industrial's court's order of 1995.

But the case was rejected by the Industrial Court in April this year and Rao moved the high court, starting the cycle of litigations once again. It was on this petition that the Mumbai high court gave an interim order in his favour. The company has already despatched the cheque to the 73-year old Rao.