SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. - (1.) National Textile Corporation Limited (for short 'NTC'), is a public sector undertaking constituted and registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Appellant No.2 before us is the National Textile Corporation (Uttar Pradesh) Limited, Kanpur, a subsidiary of appellant No. 3 that has set up several industrial establishments in the State of Uttar Pradesh. M/s. New Victoria Mills, appellant No.1, is one such establishment set up by appellant No.2 in Kanpur. Respondent was working as a Supervisor (Maintenance) in appellant No.1 since 1991, having been so appointed on transfer from M/s. Atherton Mills, another industrial unit set up by appellant No.2.
(2.) The textile industry went through difficult times at the turn of the century and accordingly, endeavours were made to examine the feasibility of the continued existence of different textile mills. A question mark over the existence of these mills in turn had ramifications for the persons who were employed with these mills. In order to safeguard the interests of these employees, a Modified Voluntary Retirement Scheme (for short 'MVRS/Scheme') was propounded by appellant No.3 to facilitate the voluntary retirement of employees and workers of appellant No.1 and certain other mills operated by appellant No.2. It is of significance to note that this MVRS was proposed pursuant to the recommendations made by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short 'BIFR'), with the objective of rationalising surplus manpower and reducing the losses of appellant No.2. BIFR had come into the picture as the production activities of appellant No.2 were brought to a standstill and it had been declared a sick undertaking under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The financial condition of appellant No.2 was so precarious that BIFR recommended closure of nine out of eleven mills of appellant No.2, including appellant No.1. While making this recommendation, in order to secure the interests of the employees, BIFR imposed a condition that the mills would only be closed if all employees working therein were given the benefit of a voluntary retirement scheme. Thus, MVRS came to be promulgated in supersession of the earlier revised voluntary retirement scheme.
(3.) The Management reserved the right to refuse the MVRS application without assigning any reasons in terms of Clause 1.6 of the MVRS. Clauses 1.6 of the MVRS reads as under: "1.6 The management reserves the right to refuse a MVRS application without assigning any reasons further applications for MVRS in respect of 1.6.1 and 1.6.2 may be put up before the Board of Director for consideration. 1.6.1 Where disciplinary proceeding are either pending or are contemplated against the employee concerned for imposition of major penalty. 1.6.2 Where prosecution in a Criminal Court is contemplated or may have already been launched in any Court of Law and 1.6.3 Employees who resign from the services of the company in a normal manner are not entitled in MVRS." ;