AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.—The appellant is an Union of the ex-employees of the Tamil Nadu Steels Limited, Arakonam. In these appeals, the said
Union challenges the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court whereby, the learned single Judge dismissed the two writ petitions filed by
the appellant by a common Judgment. In W. P. No. 14993 of 1999, the appellant challenged G.O.Ms. No. 524 Industries (MIA. I) Department,
dated August 21, 1998 as also G.O.Ms. No. 623 Industries (MIA. I) Department, dated September 22, 1998 issued by the 1st respondent in so
far as they order the recovery of Voluntary Retirement Scheme compensation. The other writ petition (WP. No. 14994 of 1999) was for an issue
of a Writ of mandamus directing the respondents to provide employment to the members of its association any posts commensurate with their last
employment and pay as also to protect their pay and revision thereof under the Fifth State Pay Commission''s recommendations as per G.O.Ms.
No. 524 Industries (MIA. I), dated August 21, 1998 and G.O.Ms. No. 623 Industries (MIA. I), dated September 22, 1998.
A short history would be necessary: All the members of the appellant Union were the employees of Tamil Nadu Steels Limited, Arakonam,
fourth respondent herein, which was a Government of Tamil Nadu Undertaking and subsidiary of Tamil Nadu Industrial Development Corporation
Limited and therefore ""State"" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It was making good profit till 1993 and had provided
employment to about 800 persons. However, it faced rough weather financially and was sought to be disposed of after closure. A writ petition
(W.P. No. 12129 of 1994) was filed to challenge this action, which was dismissed on August 25, 1994 and it was claimed in the petition that
W.A. No. 1117 of 1994 was still pending.
Perhaps, because the fourth respondent could not pull on, a Voluntary Retirement Scheme was announced on June 18, 1997, which offered a
compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- but, according to the petitioners, it did not receive the expected co-operation. The fourth respondent had also
filed an application u/s 25-M of the Industrial Disputes Act seeking permission to ''lay off'' the workers with effect from November 19, 1997.
However, that application was also dismissed as not pressed on September 25, 1997. Another application was also taken out u/s 25-N of the
Industrial Disputes Act seeking permission to ""retrench"" the workers with effect from January 7, 1998. However, even that application was
withdrawn. It was the case of the workmen that they had also moved an application u/s 33-C(l) of the Industrial Disputes Act, requesting the State
Government to issue a certificate to them to recover the unpaid wages from December 1, 1997. Even the second application filed by the fourth
respondent u/s 25-M of the Industrial Disputes Act for ""lay off"" was dismissed on March 6, 1995. It was the consistent case of the workmen that
they remained unpaid.
It is thereafter that the then existing Union was invited for negotiations. While the negotiations were on, the State Government allegedly declared
the fourth respondent as a ""relief undertaking"" for a period of one year by G.O.Ms. No. 178 Industries Department, dated June 3, 1998 as a result
of which, nothing could be recovered from the fourth respondent.
Seeing this financial debacle, the Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 22 Industries Department dated June 16, 1998 by which, it ordered the
closure"" of the fourth respondent as there was no scope for its revival and also transferred its lands to State Industries, Promotion Corporation of
Tamil Nadu at the then prevailing market value. In their petition, the petitioner/appellant dubbed all these actions as ""mala fide"" and it was made out
as if the workmen have been pushed to agree to a Voluntary Retirement Scheme.
Ultimately, it is an admitted position that the Union of the workmen reached a ""settlement"" and under it accepted to be voluntarily retired under the
scheme. The workmen collected their compensation under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme during the month of August, 1998 and it is the case
of the workmen that they received it ""under protest"". In short, the workers ""retired"" finally after having accepted the compensation amount along
with gratuity and provident fund, etc., with effect from July 31, 1998. It is only thereafter that the above mentioned two Government Orders, viz.
G.O.Ms. Nos. 524 and 623 came to be issued almost immediately, i.e. on August 21, 1998 and September 22, 1998 respectively.
By these two Government Orders, the Government directed that the retrenched workmen of the fourth respondent undertaking should be
absorbed in some other public sector undertaking, transport corporations, municipalities, town panchayats, etc. In the corresponding posts having
regard to the suitability, eligibility and qualifications. The Government Orders also suggested that those employees, who would be benefitted,
would be absorbed as ""fresh entrants"" and subject to the condition that they must return the compensation received under the Voluntary Retirement
Scheme (not the amount received towards gratuity, provident fund, etc.). It is obvious that the members of the then Union and now the association
accepted the services, which were offered through G.O.Ms. Nos. 524 and 623, without any demur and kept quiet. They thereafter started making
representations that firstly they should be absorbed in the posts commensurate with their last employment and their earlier pay in the fourth
respondent undertaking should be protected. They also pointed out secondly, that the recovery of the compensation, which would be a
precondition and to which they had agreed, should not be effected as it was onerous. It is significant to note here that the recoveries were not to be
effected at lump sum but by easy monthly instalments. Having found at their representations fell on the deaf ear, they approached the Court by the
aforementioned two writ petitions.
The learned single Judge took the view that the petitioners could not oppose the recovery of the compensation, which was paid to them, as they
had obtained the benefits under the aforementioned Government Orders and had accepted the conditions laid down therein. Having accepted the
employment in other State-owned undertakings, Transport Corporations, Municipalities, Town Panchayats, etc., they could not now turn back and
demand as of right that the compensation paid to them should not be recovered from them. Similarly, the learned single Judge also took the view
that since they had chosen to voluntarily retire, they were left with no status and could not claim the benefits of the status, seniority or the pay
protection. The learned single Judge held that they had undoubtedly agreed under the aforementioned Government Orders to join on the conditions
in those Government Orders and, therefore, they could not now make a grudge of it. It is this common judgment, dismissing both the writ petitions,
which is challenged by the two appeals.
Ms. Vaigai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant very vehemently argued that the closure of the fourth respondent undertaking
was brought about by the Government with a ""mala fide objective"" and as such, the Voluntary Retirement Scheme itself was nothing but a desired
result of the unhealthy design on the part of the State. She tried to argue that the workers were not left with any alternative but to accept the
Voluntary Retirement Scheme as for almost a year prior to this, the workers were not being paid any wages. Learned counsel argued that, in fact,
the very idea of the execution of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme was a tainted one, with a design to deprive the workers of their rightful wages.
She, therefore, invited our attention to the various applications filed by the fourth"" respondent under Sections 25-M and 250-N of the Industrial
Disputes Act and tried to suggest that the sole objective of the respondents was to anyhow close down the fourth respondent, undertaking and, in
the process, the only sufferers were the workers, who were driven into accepting the Voluntary Retirement Scheme.
We fail to follow this logic for the simple reason that the Voluntary Retirement Scheme has been accepted by the workers with ""open eyes"".
They were paid ""substantial amount"" besides their terminal benefits like gratuity, provident fund, etc. and once they had accepted the Voluntary
Retirement Scheme as a result of the negotiations and settlement, they could not turn around and attack the very Scheme. The most important fact
to be considered is that at no point of time have the workers challenged the Government Order by which the Voluntary Retirement Scheme was
offered. It is significant to note that in both the earlier writ petitions, though the ire of the petitioner was directed towards the Voluntary Retirement
Scheme and the Government Order introducing that scheme, the petitioners have studiously avoided to challenge that. The reason is obvious. The
workers did not want to lose the benefits which they got under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. It was feebly tried to be suggested by the
learned counsel that the workers had accepted the Voluntary Retirement Scheme under protest. We fail to follow this argument also on the
backdrop that even thereafter the workers did not choose to challenge the Voluntary Retirement Scheme at all. It is only when by the
aforementioned two Government Orders, the workers were absorbed, though on some conditions, that the workers gathered together, formed a
different association in place of the erstwhile Union and have now comeforth to challenge the two Government Orders to the extent which we have
indicated earlier. The whole exercise is absolutely inexplicable. Once it is found that the Government Order, introducing the Voluntary Retirement
Scheme is not at all in challenge, the appellant/petitioner cannot be allowed to attack that very scheme more particularly when they had chosen to
be benefited from that scheme.
The story does not stop here. Under the aforementioned two Government Orders, which were challenged, it is specifically mentioned in
G.O.Ms. No. 524 that various representations were being received from the employees of the fourth respondent undertaking for their absorption
in other State-owned undertakings. Transport Corporations, Municipalities, Town Panchayats, etc. Recording to their suitability, eligibility and
qualifications to the posts. By this Government Order, which was issued on August 21, 1998, the State Government took the decision to absorb
these employees, who were rendered jobless because of the closure of the fourth respondent undertaking. Accordingly, a decision was taken for
their absorption in the State-owned undertakings, Transport Corporations, Municipalities, Town Panchayats, etc. to fill up the posts which existed
in those organisations and even for the future vacancies caused by promotion, retirement or creation of new posts. Secondly. the Government also
took the measure of stopping of further appointments of fresh candidates through other channels like employment exchange, open market, etc. in
these organisations till the eligible staff of the fourth respondent undertaking was absorbed in the respective posts. For that purpose, even the rules
regarding the sponsorship of candidates and the age restrictions were relaxed. The Government Order then provided that such persons would be
absorbed as ""new entrants"". Not only this but the Managing Director of the fourth respondent undertaking was requested to address all the
Chairmen and Managing Directors of the State-owned undertakings, including the Transport Corporations to furnish the bio-data of the individuals
of the erstwhile staff and even the Chief Executive Officers of the other Corporations including the Transport Corporations were requested to
place the matter before the respective Boards and to consider the said bio-data of the individuals received from the Managing Director of the
fourth respondent undertaking and decide upon the appointment of the individuals in their Corporation in suitable posts. Now one thing must be
stated here that this was predominantly for all the workers who were rendered jobless because of the closure of the fourth respondent and the
number of such persons was enormous, somewhere around 800. It is then in the third paragraph of this Government Order it is provided that this
scheme will be applicable even to the persons who had taken the advantage of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme on condition that they return the
compensation received by them under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme in easy monthly instalments. It is not as if all the 800 workmen had taken
voluntary retirement as the members of the petitioner-Union have done. What is not being realised is that if the demands of the petitioner/appellant
are accepted, they would be having ""an unfair advantage"" over such other workers who had not taken the benefit of Voluntary Retirement Scheme.
Again it must be mentioned that the Government has acted in a very considerate manner in directing them to return the compensation received
under Voluntary Retirement Scheme alone in easy monthly instalments. Therefore, there is absolutely no justification for the petitioner/ appellant to
refuse to pay back the compensation firstly because they accepted the Voluntary Retirement Scheme on their own and secondly, they got the
benefits of G.O.Ms. No. 623 and they are now turning back and refusing to return the compensation received under the Voluntary Retirement
Scheme. This would not only be ""illegal"" but ""unfair"" to the other workmen in the same organisation who had not taken the benefit of Voluntary
Retirement Scheme and who did not have the benefit of receiving the ""substantial compensation"" as the members of the petitioner-Union received.
We are, therefore, in complete agreement with the learned single Judge that the demand of the petitioner in so far as it pertains to the return of the
compensation received under Voluntary Retirement Scheme is concerned is completely unjustified and cannot be acceded to.
Ms. Vaigai thereafter very strongly suggested that atleast the pay of the members of the petitioner-Union should be protected as they were being
paid very meagre pay and that their continuing as the ""new employees"" was not only onerous to them but unfair also.
Now, in the first place, the petitioner had no right either before the learned single Judge or before us. It was only by way of compensatory
measure that the Government had issued G.O.Ms. No. 623 offering them the jobs in other organisations including the Transport Corporations,
Municipalities, Town Panchayats, etc. When we closely see the language of both the Government Orders, it is clear that there is nothing to suggest
that the Government proposed to protect their pay structure or to give them the other benefits. It was merely as a ""welfare measure"" that the
Government considered the absorption of these workers. There is, therefore, no promise on the part of the Government muchless a duty and
thereby no right in the present petitioners. On the other hand, the present members of the petitioner-association chose to accept the employment
on the specific conditions mentioned in the two Government Orders. They would, therefore, be clearly bound by the same.
The members of the appellant-union also could not claim the declaration regarding the same scales of pay and the protection of their pay in their
earlier service. It must be understood that by the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, their earlier service had totally come to an end. They were merely
rehabilitated along with some others who did not even have the benefit of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Such rehabilitation was in altogether
different spheres like State-owned undertakings, Transport Corporations, Municipalities, Town Panchayats, etc. A rehabilitated employee could
not claim the same nature of work because the employee was being rehabilitated in an entirely different set up. Thus, there would be no question of
the employees claiming all these benefits. We are in complete agreement with the learned single Judge that the petitioner/ appellant could not claim
any such benefits and their writ petition was devoid of any merit.
Ms. Vaigai invited our attention to the decisions in State of Punjab and Others Vs. Gursharan Singh and Others, : Gurmail Singh and Others Vs.
State of Punjab and Others, : Workmen of Subong Tea Estate Vs. The Outgoing Management of Subong Tea Estate and Another, : and N.P.
Verma and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, : However, we find that none of these cases is a case of voluntary retirement or a
rehabilitatory exercise by the State Government. On facts, all the four cases are completely different and not apposite to the present controversy.
The appeals have no merits. They are dismissed. No costs. C.M.P. Nos. 3521 and 3522 of 2000 are closed.