AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A. N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—W.P. No. 24704/2012 filed by the petitioner to direct the respondents to consider a representation dated 19.06.2012 and pass appropriate order by conferring all the benefits to him in terms of a memo issued by the respondent-Company dated 21.07.2006, was decided on 27.09.2012, by taking note of the fact that the respondent - Company on account of the loss suffered and the accumulation of loss, has been registered as a sick industry and the statement made that any benefit which is extended to other similarly placed employees will be extended to the petitioner and in individual cases the company cannot take a decision and if a decision is to be taken, it has to be taken in respect of all the employees and for that, the company has to work out the financial implications. It was observed by this Court, taking note of the said statement, as follows:
Since the Company is suffering from loss and if there is any financial constraint, Court cannot compel the Company to make the payment, however, if the benefits are required to be extended to other employees and similar benefits are extended to other employees, certainly the petitioner also becomes entitled for similar benefits. Even if the petitioner is retired, the Company shall intimate to the petitioner as regard to the revision of pay scale and other benefits extended to other employees, so that he can approach and receive the said benefit.
Sri. K. Ramachandran, learned advocate for the respondents submitted that the position of the respondent-Company has not changed i.e., from the one which prevailed on 27.09.2012 when W.P. 24704/2012 was decided. He submitted that petitioner''s representations as at Annexures-E1 to E3 cannot be considered individually but will have to be considered on par with the other employees of the respondent-Company, as and when the BIFR decides the matter and funds become available for payment. The submission made by Sri. K. Ramachandran with regard to the respondent-Company being under BIFR is not disputed by the learned advocate for the petitioner.
In the circumstances, by reiterating the order/observation dated 27.09.2012 passed in W.P. No. 24704/2012, the petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to extend the service benefits to the petitioner when similar benefits are extended to other employees, without taking into consideration that the petitioner has ceased to be an employee of the Company, on account of he having attained the age of superannuation.
The petitioner may approach the respondent-Company and seek extension of benefits, soon after the proceeding pending before the BIFR comes to an end.
Ordered accordingly.