DILIP CH BHUYAN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. M. K. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. J. R. Barman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. K. Sharma, learned GA for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Ms. S. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 to 5.

(2.) THE writ petitioners, whose detailed particulars have been provided in Annexure-2 to the writ petition, were the employees of the Assam Polyester Co-operative Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'apol') , Tulsibari Mill, Rangia in the district of Kamrup and they rendered service in different capacities for about 15 to 16 years. In due course their services were regularized. While the petitioners were working in the Tulsibari Mill, APOL, the respondents vide notice dated 25. 12. 2003 suspended the production of the Mill and thus made the petitioners jobless. According to the petitioners, while issuing the notice of closer of production of the Mill, no notice was given to the petitioners terminating their services. The petitioners, being regular employees of the APOL had approached the authorities for absorbing them in their job and to release their monthly salary, but the authority concerned did not respond. According to the petitioners in the months of May and June, 2006 only 260 employees were re-employed and subsequently the strength was raised to 404 without considering the petitioners' case. According to the petitioners some of the employees were re-employed on the basis of pick and choose policy depriving the petitioners and that due to such irregularity on the part of the authorities, the petitioners were put to much inconvenience and hardship in managing their livelihood. As the petitioners did not receive any response from the authority in respect of their prayer for re-employment they have come up with this writ petition seeking direction for re-employment and release of salary for the entire period.

(3.) THE notices being issued, the respondent No. 2, by filing an affidavit-in-opposition, stated that neither the Society i. e. APOL nor its employees were governed by the Government Rules. However, the respondent No. 2 in his affidavit at paragraph 10 stated that there was a scheme under the National Co-operative Development Council (NCDC) towards rehabilitation and that the said package used to provide an amount of one crore as Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS ). It is also stated, in the affidavit aforesaid, that once the said amount of rehabilitation package is received by the Society, then the Society can implement the VRS scheme. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 also corrected the petitioners' claim by filing an affidavit-in-opposition. In their affidavit-in-opposition the respondents averred that due to acute financial hardship the production of the Mill had to be closed, but subsequently the functioning of the Mill was started to some extent. According to the answering respondents, the Mill was made functional by initially re-employing 260 employees and subsequently the re-employment was raised to 404. It was further stated that as the machines of the Society's weaving and production Unit became inoperative it was not economically viable to re-employ all the employees of the Society. Denying the allegation of adopting pick and choose policy, the respondent aforesaid in their affidavit-in-opposition, stated that the employees having good employment record were re-employed. The petitioners have filed an additional affidavit annexing the revised policy on VRS for the employees of the State Level Public Enterprises of Assam. The said scheme was notified under notification No. PE/4/2006/28 dated 15. 2. 2006.