AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J—The eight writ petitioners were working as mazdoors of the respondents No. 4, Andaman and Nicobar Forest Plantation and Development Corporation Limited, hereinafter called as the corporation, at Hut Bay, Little Andaman. In this writ petition the petitioners have challenged eight separate decision of the respondent No. 1 (Chairman of the corporation) dated March 18, 2014 affirming the decisions of the respondents No. 2, Managing Director of the corporation for the removal of each of them from the service of the corporation with effect from June 4, 2010. Although the subject matters of challenge in this writ petition are the orders dated March 18, 2014 passed by the respondent No. 1 Chairman affirming the decision of respondent No. 2 Managing Director removing the petitioners from their service from June 04, 2010, but the origin of the disputes involved in this writ petition date back in October, 1994 when the petitioners were placed under suspension from service.
The petitioners were serving as the workmen engaged in harvesting palm clearance in the Research and Development wing of the corporation at Hut Bay, Little Andaman. With effect from October 10, 1994 all the petitioners were placed under suspension on the common ground of misconduct and misbehaviour at the working place. On December, 28, 1994 three common charges were framed by the corporation against each of the petitioners, (i) for not giving daily out-turn fixed by the authorities, (ii) apart from themselves giving less daily out-turn, they instigated other workmen engaged in harvesting palm clearance also to slow-down the work to give less daily out-turn and, (iii) after giving less daily out-turn they loitered/kept idling while on duty. By separate memorandum all dated December 28, 1994 issued to each of them, the petitioners were informed about the above three charges framed against each of them and that separate enquiries will be held against each of them in respect of the charges framed against them. The list of documents and the list of witnesses to be produced in support of the said charges were also forwarded to each of the petitioners. The petitioners were directed to submit their individual written statement of the defence before the Enquiry Officer.
A common Enquiry Officer was appointed by the corporation to conduct separate enquiry proceeding in respect of the charges framed against each of the petitioners. In this writ petition the petitioners have disclosed one set of the enquiry report in respect of the enquiry proceeding against the petitioner No. 8, Shri V. Muruganandan. Both Mr. Roshan George and Ms. Tasneem learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the respondents respectively, submitted that since the report of the Enquiry Officer and the subsequent decisions of the disciplinary authority are identical in respect of the each of the petitioners, in order to avoid voluminous records, the petitioners have disclosed only one set of the enquiry report, and one decision of the disciplinary authority against one of the petitioners. They further submitted that even correspondence exchanged between the petitioners on one hand and the concerned respondents on the other hand in this case are also identical and same and as such one set of correspondence exchanged between one of the petitioners and the concerned respondents have been disclosed in this writ petition and the same are sufficient for deciding the case of all the petitioners in this writ petition. None of the petitioners attended the enquiry proceeding nor did they adduce any evidence to defend themselves. Accordingly, the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry proceedings ex parte against each of the petitioners. In the enquiry proceeding, the presenting officer adduced evidence through witnesses and documents. The Enquiry Officer filed separate enquiry reports together with all the records of the enquiry proceeding to the disciplinary authority. In each of the enquiry report, the finding of the Enquiry Officer was that on the basis of the documentary and oral evidence adduced in the case before him by the Presenting Officer, and the reasons recorded by him, all the three articles of charges brought against each petitioner have been proved. The disciplinary authority accepted the reports of the Enquiry Officer and directed removal of each of the petitioners-workmen from service. Alongwith the orders of removal the copy of the relevant enquiry report was also enclosed to each of the petitioners.
Against decision of the disciplinary authority directing removal of all the petitioners from service, industrial disputes were raised by the petitioners and the same were referred the Labour Court of Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The Labour Court held that the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India were applicable to the petitioners and set aside the decision of the Disciplinary authority removing the petitioners from service on the ground that the copy of the enquiry report was not served upon the petitioner with second show cause notice and directed reinstatement of the petitioners in their service.
The unsuccessful challenge to the said award of the Labour Court by the corporation before the learned single Judge and the Division Bench of this court, reached the Supreme Court. By an order dated December 17, 2004 the Supreme court held that the Article 311 of the Constitution of India is inapplicable to the petitioners and set aside the said award passed by the Labour Court. The matter was remitted to the Labour Court for consideration of the matter afresh. The Supreme Court held copies of the enquiry reports should have been supplied to the petitioner workmen so as to enable them to raise the contention about the correctness of the findings of the Enquiry Officer contained in the report. The Supreme Court also directed the corporation to pay Rs. 10,000 to the petitioners workmen as costs.
Thereafter, fresh hearing took place before the Labour Court, Andaman and Nicobar Islands which were attended by the petitioners and the corporation. By an award dated December 23, 2009 the Labour Court once again held that the termination of service of the petitioners is neither legal nor justified. The Labour Court directed the corporation to supply the copy of the enquiry report along with the show cause notice afresh to each of the petitioners by fixing schedule date for the purpose hearing afresh and then the corporation will be at liberty to consider causes shown by the respective petitioners, either to reinstate or to keep the termination order at their discretion. In the said award the Labour Court held that in the event of any decision of the disciplinary authority for reinstatement of the petitioners workmen, the petitioners will not be entitled to get back wages.
The petitioners and the corporation accepted the award of the Labour Court. On May 13, 2009 the Divisional Manager of the Corporation, being the Disciplinary authority, issued separate show cause notices to each of the petitioners informing them that by accepting the enquiry report submitted by Enquiry Officer it is proposed to impose upon them major penalty of removal from service. Along with the said show cause notice a copy of the respective enquiry report was forwarded to each of the petitioners. The petitioners were directed to submit their explanation in writing to the Divisional Manager himself, being the disciplinary authority, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the respective show cause notices. By letters dated July 27, 2009 and January 11, 2010 the petitioners informed the disciplinary authority that the "enquiry report" furnished to them does not contain the statement of witnesses and evidence based on which the Enquiry Officer came to his findings and as such requested the disciplinary authority to furnish the full set of enquiry report including the copies of the statement of witnesses to enable them to file their respective comments/reply to the enquiry reports.
In response to the said requests of the petitioners made in July 2009 and January 2010, it was on April 16, 2010 when by a letter the disciplinary authority informed each of the petitioners that copies of the documents readily available with the corporation will be kept as exhibits in the office of the disciplinary authority from April 15, 2010 onwards, the petitioners can verify the said documents upto April 30, 2010 and submit their respective explanation if any to the respective show cause notice issued to them within May 15, 2010 to the Managing Director. By letters dated May 10, 2010 the petitioners informed the Divisional Manager of the corporation that they have received the copies of the documents from him at Haddo on May 5, 2010 and requested for extension of time to file reply to the respective show cause notices issued to them upto June 10, 2010. The Divisional Manager did not reply to the said letters dated May 10, 2010. On June 4, 2010 the Managing Director of the corporation claming to be the disciplinary authority, imposed upon each of the petitioners major penalty of removal from the service of the Corporation with immediate effect. At this juncture, it may be noted that it was the Divisional Manager (PD) who was all along acting as the disciplinary authority and issued the show cause notices dated May 13, 2009 directing the petitioners to submit their respective explanation to him only. Suddenly, the Managing Director of the corporation passed the said order dated June 4, 2010 as the disciplinary authority. Against the said decisions of the disciplinary authority dated June 4, 2010 the petitioners filed their appeals before the respondent No. 1, Chairman of the corporation but, the latter refused to hear the said appeal as he was of the opinion that he cannot act as a appellate authority under existing working arrangement of the corporation. Thus, the petitioners challenged the said decisions of the Managing Director of the corporation dated June 4, 2010 removing them from service, by filling a writ petition, being WP No. 1293 of 2010, before the learned single Judge of this court. By an order dated November 29, 2010 the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by directing the respondent-corporation to supply the complete set of the enquiry report with all the documents whatsoever to the petitioners within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of said order. The said order contained further directions regarding the payment of subsistence allowance to the petitioners which has presently no bearing on the instant writ application. By the said order liberty was granted to the petitioners to prefer an appeal before the Managing Director. From the supplementary affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents, in this writ petition, it appears that after the said order dated November 29, 2010 was passed by this court, the Divisional Manager of the corporation, at Port Blair issued a letter dated December 27, 2010 to the General Manager of the corporation at Hut Bay. In the said letter the Divisional Manager categorically stated that only the copies of the charge sheet issued, the enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer and the order issued imposing major penalty by the disciplinary authority against the petitioners were collected from the office of the corporation at Little Andaman and the remaining original documents were retained with the Little Andaman Project. By the said letter the Divisional Manager requested the General Manager at Hut Bay to make an enquiry whether the records containing the details of the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioners including complete set of enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer is traceable, so that the copies of the same can be supplied to the petitioners in terms of the said order dated November 29, 2010. By a letter dated January 17, 2011 the Divisional Manager, Little Andaman of the corporation informed the Divisional Manager (PD) Port Blair that they are unable to provide the complete set of enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer to the disciplinary authority as all records lying at the said office were destroyed due to the devastating Tsunami on December 26, 2004.
In November, 2011 the petitioners filed contempt application before the learned single Judge of this court alleging violation of the direction contained in the said order dated November 29, 2010 by the respondents-officers of the corporation by not supplying complete set of enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer to the petitioners and non payment of subsistence allowance in terms of the said order dated November 29, 2010. The said contempt application was disposed of by a learned single Judge on November 16, 2011 by recording the submission of the counsel representing the officers of the corporation that they have complied with the order dated November 29, 2010 by supplying all necessary documents available with them pertaining to the disciplinary proceeding to the petitioners and that they do not have any further document to be submitted before the disciplinary authority. By the said order the respondent were directed to furnish copy of the document, if any if they intend to rely in the proceedings and that they would not use any document without the copy being served before the petitioners.
The petitioners filed separate appeals in the form of separate representations to the respondent No. 2 Managing Director of the corporation. In their respective appeal petition before the Managing Director, the petitioners specifically took the ground that the evidence adduced by the witnesses in the enquiry proceedings, also considered by the Enquiry Officer in the Enquiry report on the basis of which the said show cause notices dated May 13, 2009 were issued were not supplied to them and the decisions of the Managing Director as the appellate authority against the petitioners were violative of the principle of natural justice. The respondent No. 2, Managing Director, as the appellate authority passed an order rejecting the appeals of the respective petitioners and affirmed the respective decision of himself dated June 04, 2010 removing the petitioners from the service of the corporation. These separate decisions of the Managing Director, as the appellate authority, against each of the petitioner were challenged in the writ petition being No. 279 of 2013 filed before this Court. By an order dated December 10, 2013 a learned single Judge of this Court quashed all the orders passed by the respondent No. 2, Managing director on the ground he himself having passed the impugned orders as disciplinary authority could not act as the appellate authority against the said orders. By the said order dated December 10, 2013 the learned single Judge directed the respondent No. 1, Chairman to act as Appellate authority and to decide the appeals preferred by the petitioners against the orders of their removal from service passed by the Managing Director.
In terms of the said order dated December 10, 2013 the respondent No. 1, Chairman of the corporation acted as the appellate authority to decide the appeals preferred by the petitioners against the order passed by the Managing Director as the disciplinary authority. It appears that a notice dated February 24, 2014 was issued to each of the petitioners directing them to be present before the Chairman on March 3, 2014 in person, for hearing. The petitioners were allowed to submit any reply before the Chairman at the time of personal hearing fixed on March 3, 2014. All the appeals were heard by the Chairman on March 3, 2014 when although each of the petitioners attended the respective hearings but none of them filed any written reply before the Chairman. On March 18, 2014 the respondent No. 1, Chairman passed the impugned orders, against the respective petitioners upholding and confirming the decision of the Managing Director dated June 4, 2010 directing their removal from service of the corporation with effect from June 4, 2014.
Mr. Roshan George appearing in support of the writ petitioners raised three contentions. His first contention was that in spite of the order dated November, 29, 2010 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court directing the corporation to supply complete set of enquiry report with all the documents to the petitioners, the corporation and the disciplinary authority did not supply the evidence of the respective witnesses adduced before the Enquiry Officer based on which the Enquiry Officer had filed his enquiry reports against each of the petitioners before the first disciplinary authority. According to him, in the absence of the copies of the evidence of the said witnesses before the Enquiry Officer, the petitioners were deprived of their right to challenge the findings of the Enquiry Officer both before the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority, the Chairman and consequently petitioners were further prevented from challenging the decision of the disciplinary authority before the Chairman. Thus, Mr. George contended that non supply of the evidence of the respective witnesses in his enquiry report relied by the Enquiry Officer to the petitioner is not only contrary to the order dated December 17, 2004 passed by the Supreme Court and the order dated November 29, 2010 passed by this Court but the same also resulted in utter violation of the principle of natural justice and on that ground alone the decisions of both the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority removing the petitioners from their service are liable to be set aside. The second contention of Mr. George was that in any event, the impugned decisions of the appellate authority, the Chairman and the disciplinary authority, the Managing Director removing the petitioners from the service of corporation discloses no reason and each of the impugned orders passed by the Chairman and the Managing Director against the respective petitioners has been passed in a mechanical manner and the same are vitiated by total non application of mind by the Chairman. In support of his contention Mr. George cited upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984 : (1990) CriLJ 2148(1) : (1990) 3 JT 630 : (1990) 4 SCC 594 : (1990) 1 SCR 44 Supp : (1991) 1 SLJ 1 ; Divl. Forest Officer, Kothagudem and Others Vs. Madhusudhan Rao, (2008) 2 CLT 866 : (2008) 117 FLR 578 : (2008) 2 JT 253 : (2008) 2 LLJ 671 : (2008) 2 SCALE 322 : (2008) 3 SCC 469 : (2008) 1 SCC(L&S) 788 : (2008) 3 SLJ 125 : (2008) 1 UJ 307 : (2008) AIRSCW 1365 : (2008) AIRSCW 4084 : (2008) 4 Supreme 547 : (2008) 1 Supreme 617 . His third contention was that even it is accepted for the sake of the argument, that the charges levelled against each of the petitioners have been proved in the disciplinary proceeding, in that event also the penalty imposed upon each of the petitioners removing them from the service of the corporation is shocking and disproportionate and as such the impugned decisions of the Chairman being the appellate authority, is liable to be set aside.
However, Ms. Tasneem learned advocate appearing for the corporation, its Chairman and Managing Director contended that there is no merit in this writ application and the writ petition is liable to be rejected. She submitted that in terms of the decision of the Labour Court dated February 23, 2009 the fresh cause notice dated May 13, 2009 was issued by the Divisional Manager being the disciplinary authority, granting opportunity to the petitioners to file their respective reply/explanation within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said show cause notice, as to why the major penalty of removal from service shall not be imposed upon them. Further, by a letter dated April 16, 2010 an opportunity was granted to the petitioners to take inspection of the relevant records at the office of the corporation and the time also extended till may 15, 2010 for filling the reply/explanation by the petitioners to the respective show cause notices issued to them before the disciplinary authority. Thereafter, the petitioners prayed for extension of time to file their reply to the said show cause on the ground of obtaining copies of the evidence adduced by the witnesses before Enquiry Officer. She relied on the letter dated May 10, 2010 issued by the petitioners to the Divisional Manager and submitted that the petitioners admitted to have received copies of the documents and prayed for extension of time to submit their suitable reply to the said show cause notice on the ground that the president of the union is proceeding to mainland for the urgent medical check up. Thus, according to Ms. Tasneem, the contention of the petitioners that all the documents including the evidence adduced by the witnesses before the Enquiry Officer, were not supplied to them is believe by the records of this case. She further submitted that the said order dated November 16, 2011 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court recorded the submission of the officers of the corporation that they have complied with the order dated November 29, 2010 by supplying all necessary documents available with them pertaining to the disciplinary proceedings to the petitioners. She pointed out that although the Chairman of the corporation as the appellate authority granted opportunity of personal hearing to each of the petitioners as also to submit any written reply, none of the petitioners submitted any written reply during the course of the personal hearing held by the Chairman on March 3, 2012. Thus, Ms. Tasneem strenuously contended that there was no violation of principle of natural justice in the hearing of the appeal by the respondent No. 1, Chairman and the impugned decision of the respondent No. 1, Chairman against any of the petitioners cannot be challenged on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. It was further contended on behalf of the corporation that decisions of the both Managing Director, disciplinary authority and the Chairman being the appellate authority passed against each of the petitioners disclose sufficient reasons and as such the contentions of the petitioners that the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 1-Chairman, the appellate authority, or the order of Managing Director do not disclose any reason is bereft of any merit. On the basis of these contentions Ms. Tasneem appearing for the respondent prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
I have considered the submission of both Mr. George and Ms. Tasneem, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and respondents respectively as also the documents disclosed by the respective parties in this writ application. The petitioners were all along requesting the corporation and the Divisional Manager, being the disciplinary authority, named in the show cause notice dated May 13, 2009 to supply the complete set of the enquiry report comprising the evidence of the witnesses considered by the Enquiry Officer in his enquiry report which was accepted by the subsequent disciplinary authority for issuance of the show cause notices dated May 13, 2009. The respondents could not substantiate that before passing of the decision dated June 04, 2010 by the Managing Director the complete set of the enquiry report comprising the evidence of the witnesses before the enquiry officer, based on which the enquiry report was prepared and filed by the Enquiry Officer was at all supplied to any of the petitioners. Further, except stating that the petitioners did not submit any explanation to the respective show cause notices issued to them, within May 15, 2010 the decisions dated June 04, 2010 of the Disciplinary authority do record any reason for imposition of major penalty of removal of the petitioners from the services of the corporation with immediate effect. Even, thereafter by the said order dated November 29, 2010 passed in W.P. No. 1293 of 2010 a learned single Judge of this Court directed the concerned respondent to supply the complete set of enquiry report with all the documents whatsoever to the petitioners but said order was not complied.
As discussed above, in the appeal petitions before the Managing Director, the petitioners specifically assailed the decisions of the disciplinary authority dated June 04, 2010 on the ground that the complete set of the enquiry report comprising the evidence of the witnesses considered by the Enquiry Officer were not supplied to them and as such the decision of the disciplinary authority against them are vitiated by violation of the principle of natural justice. The correspondence dated December 27, 2010 and January 17, 2011 exchanged between the Divisional Manager (P&A) of the Corporation at Port Blair and Divisional Manager at Little Andaman, substantiate beyond any doubt that the complete set of the enquiry report of the enquiry officer comprising the evidence of the witnesses considered by the Enquiry Officer in his enquiry report could not be supplied to any of the petitioners. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the petitioners had no chance to ascertain the correctness of the findings in the enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer on the basis of which the decision was taken to impose the major penalty of removal from service on the petitioners and the said show cause notices dated May 13, 2009 were issued by the subsequent disciplinary authority. By the order dated December 10, 2013 this Court directed the respondent No. 1 Chairman to decide the appeals already preferred by the petitioners against the orders of dismissal passed by the Managing Director. In the said appeals already preferred, the petitioners had challenged the order of the Managing Director on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice as the complete set of the enquiry reports of the Enquiry Officer comprising the evidence of the witnesses considered in the enquiry report were not supplied to them and as such they had no scope to ascertain the correctness of the findings of the Enquiry Officer. From the impugned decisions all dated March 18, 2014 of the Chairman, the appellate authority it is evident that there is no decision with regard to the contention of the petitioner that the decision of the Managing Director against them are violative of the principle of natural justice. Further, although in the impugned decisions, the Chairman recorded that he has considered all the records relating with the matter but in view of the facts already discussed above, it is beyond doubt that the Chairman could not have the complete set of the enquiry reports of the Enquiry Officer, before him. Therefore, this Court cannot but hold that the impugned decisions of the Chairman against the respective petitioners are all vitiated by perversity and violative of the principle of natural justice.
Further on a reading of the decisions dated June 04, 2010 of the Managing Director being the disciplinary authority, it is evident that the same does not disclose any finding that any of the three charges levelled, against petitioners has been proved or there is any reason for imposition of the penalty of removal from service against the petitioners. Similarly, the impugned decisions of the Chairman, the appellate authority, also do not disclose either any finding that charges levelled against any of petitioners have been proved or any reason, for imposition of the penalty of removal from service upon each of the petitioners. Without any finding that all the three charges framed against the petitioners have been proved, the Chairman-the appellate authority, has mechanically passed each of the impugned decisions against the eight petitioners, mainly on the ground that the petitioners did not file any written reply at the time of personal hearing and did not raise any new issue/point before him at the time of hearing. When the grounds of appeals of non service of the complete set of enquiry report upon the petitioners, were already mentioned in the respective appeal petition of the petitioners, the Chairman- being the appellate authority could not have passed the impugned decisions only on the aforementioned grounds. For all these reasons, I find substance in the second contention of Mr. George that impugned decisions of the Chairman-appellate authority do not disclose any reason. The decisions of the Supreme Court, cited by Mr. George in the cases of S.N. Mukherjee (supra) and Divisional Forest Officer, Kothagudem (supra) that all administrative actions, including the decision of an appellate authority, in a disciplinary proceeding against a workman or an employer must disclose reason as the charged employee is entitled to know the reasons for the decision against him and in the absence of reasons the decision of the disciplinary authority or appellate authority against the employee/workman is liable to be set aside are squarely applicable in this case.
Even in the case of G. Vallikumari Vs. Andhra Education Society and Others, AIR 2010 SC 1105 : (2010) 125 FLR 1048 : (2010) 3 JT 75 : (2010) 2 SCALE 1 : (2010) 2 SCC 497 : (2010) 1 SCC(L&S) 406 : (2010) 2 SLR 173 : (2010) 2 UJ 741 while setting aside the decision of dismissal of the petitioner from her service by the disciplinary committee and acceptance of the said decision by the Chairman of the managing committee, the Supreme Court held that the requirement of recording reasons by every quasi-judicial or even an administrative authority entrusted with the task of passing an order adversely affecting an individual and communication thereof to the affected person is one of the recognized facet of the rules of natural justice and violation thereof has the effect of vitiating the order passed by the authority concerned.
In the light of the above findings, I am unable to accept the submission of Ms. Tasneem that all the necessary documents, including the complete set of enquiry report were supplied to the petitioners or that the impugned decisions of the Managing Director and the Chairman are reasoned decisions.
For all the foregoing reasons, I hold that the impugned orders No. E/741, E/742, E/743, E/744, E/745, E/746, E/747 and E/748 all dated March 18, 2014 passed by the respondent No. 1 Chairman, ANIFPDCL (Appellate Authority) removing the petitioners from the service of respondent No. 4 corporation with effect from June 04, 2010 are all void and all the said orders bearing No. E/741, E/742, E/743, E/744, E/745, E/746, E/747 and E/748 all dated March 18, 2014 passed by the respondent No. 1 Chairman stand quashed. Consequently, all the petitioners are reinstated in their service of the corporation namely Andaman & Nicobar Forest Plantation and Development Corporation Limited, Port Blair with effect from June 04, 2010. In view of the decision of this Court accepting the first and second contention of Mr. George and directing reinstatement of the petitioners in their service of the respondent No. 4 corporation with effect from June 04, 2010 there is no necessity to decide the third contention raised by Mr. George that the punishment imposed upon the petitioners by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority were disproportionate.
In the facts of the instant case it is evident that way back of December 17, 2004 the Supreme Court had held that the petitioners are entitled to challenge the correctness of the finding of the Enquiry Officer after obtaining complete set of the enquiry report. However, without supplying the complete set of the enquiry report including evidence of the respective witnesses forming a part of the enquiry report on the basis whereof the said show cause notice dated May 13, 2009 were issued to the petitioners were, continued to be harassed and subjected to mental agony. They have been wrongfully deprived of their long years of service from October, 1994. However, in view of the award dated February 23, 2009 passed by the Labour Court, the petitioners cannot be reinstated in service with back wages from any date anterior to June 4, 2010.
In these circumstances, considering harassment and mental agony suffered by the petitioners and the fact that they have been wrongfully deprived of their continued service from October, 1994, that is, when they were put under suspension from service, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are also entitled to receive some costs from the corporation. Accordingly, respondent No. 4 corporation is also directed to pay Rs. 30,000/- to each of the petitioners by way of cost. Such cost shall be paid by the respondent No. 4 directly to each of the petitioners within four weeks from date.
With the aforesaid directions the writ petition being WP. No. 020 of 2015 stands allowed.