-76204(89) On August 8, 2003, the 64º Juzgado Civil de Lima (64th Civil Court of Lima) issued Order No. 222,142 determining, inter alia, two groups of employees: those who “have collected their social benefits, whether directly or through deposit in court [and, therefore,] following the rule set by the Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court) in its Order, in its strict sense, such plaintiffs have terminated their employment relationship with the defendant;” and those who, despite the deposit in court made by the Winding up Committee of the ESMLL, were not deemed to have collected the social benefits, for several reasons, such as lack of notice of the deposit in court, the request made to labor courts for the return of the deposit, and the objection to the deposit in court. The Order was to reinstate 56 employees, alleged victims in the instant case, and denied reinstatement concerning of 217 employees. The Primera Sala Civil (First Civil Chamber) of the Corte Superior de Justicia de Lima (Supreme Court of Justice of Lima), in its decision of December 9, 2004, affirmed Order No. 222 inasmuch as it deems the objection partly groundless and orders to reinstate the 56 workers.143 An appeal, which was granted without a stay on September 18, 2003, against Order No. 222, inasmuch as it denied reinstatement of 217 employees of the ESMLL, is still pending. 204(90) On June 10, 2004, the Concejo Provincial de Lima (Provincial Council of Lima) issued Agreement-in-Council No. 166, approving “the legislative initiative known as ‘Bill declaring the dissolution and winding up of Empresa de Servicios Municipales de Limpieza de Lima (ESMLL) (Lima Municipal Cleaning Services Corporation) ESMLL’ for approval by the Congreso de la República (National Congress of Peru).”144 204(91) On June 20, 2005, Julio César Morales, legal expert, as ordered by the 64º Juzgado Civil de Lima (64th Civil Court of Lima) on June 13, 2005, appeared together with the interested parties in the Staff Office of the Labor Relations Department of the Municipality of Lima, for the purpose of demanding compliance with the order to reinstate 28 workers, laid down in Order No. 222 of August 8, 2003 and affirmed by the Order of December 9, 2004 (supra para. 204(89).145 The legal expert drew up a record of the proceeding. On August 3, 2005, said legal expert returned to the Office mentioned above to demand the reinstatement of another 7 workers. In both instances, the Head of the Labor Relations Department of the Municipality, at the time the records were being drawn up, stated that he was faced with a “legal impossibility” to proceed to the aforementioned reinstatement of the workers.146 142 Cf. Order No. 222 rendered by the 64th Civil Court of Lima on August 8, 2003 (file of appendixes to the answer to the application, appendix 69, folio 4477). 143 Cf. Judgment rendered by the First Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Lima on December 9, 2004 (file of preliminary comments, merits, reparations and costs, Volume IV, folio 1110). 144 Cf. Council Agreement No. 166 of June 10, 2004 (file of appendixes to the submission of final arguments by the common intervener, appendix 108, folio 6123). 145 Cf. Reinstatement record of 28 workers of June 20, 2005 (file of preliminary objections, and merits, reparations, and costs, Volume VII, folio 2081). 146 Cf. Reinstatement record of 7 workers of August 3, 2005 (file of preliminary objections, and merits, reparations, and costs, Volume VII, folio 2087).