As per case facts, the Petitioners, an undertaking that declared a lockout in 1992 and later closed down, were directed by the Industrial Court to pay lockout wages to former ... employees who had resigned or taken a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS). The Petitioners appealed this order, arguing that these employees had voluntarily left service, accepted full and final settlements, and therefore relinquished their claims, including lockout wages. They also contended that a prior settlement with the recognized union specifically excluded these former employees. The question arose whether employees who resigned or opted for VRS and accepted full and final settlements still retained a right to claim lockout wages, especially when their settlements did not explicitly reserve such a claim. Finally, the High Court found that the complaints should not have been allowed. It emphasized that employees who voluntarily left service and accepted full and final settlements, without any clear reservation of claims, cannot later reopen the matter. The Court distinguished between employees who continued till closure and those who left earlier via VRS or resignation, noting that the latter had concluded their employment relationship and settled all dues. It held that the Industrial Court failed to appreciate this distinction and incorrectly applied legal precedents. Consequently, the High Court quashed the Industrial Court's order, concluding that the Petitioners did not commit an unfair labour practice by not paying lockout wages to these former employees.