RAVI KUTLEHARIA Vs. INDIAN DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND (AT: NAINITAL)
INDIAN DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Petitions dismissed. By means of these three writ petitions, the petitioners have sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing of the order dated May 3, 2007, passed by senior Manager of the Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Limited whereby the retrenchment of the petitioners have been communicated to them. It is also prayed by the petitioners that a mandamus be issued against the respondent authority to retire the petitioners after giving benefits of Voluntarily Retirement Scheme (for short V.R.S.). Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavits, counter affidavits and rejoinder affidavits.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Limited (for short I.D.P.L.) is a public sector undertaking which is already declared a sick company under Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (For short BIFR) in the year 1986. The petitioners have pleaded in these writ petitions that they were dependants of employees of I.D.P.L., who were given appointment on compassionate ground in the company in the year 1985-86. It is pleaded by them that they were appointed after facing interview as required by the company. It is admitted in para 3 of the writ petitions that the management decided to accommodate the petitioners as casual labours in the company. It has been further pleaded in para 4 of the writ petitions that names of the petitioners were mentioned in the Muster Roll but they were given medical leave, bonus etc. It is also pleaded that their salaries were drawn from the bank. The grievance of the petitioners is that after rendering long service with the respondent company, instead of giving them benefits of V.R.S., the company illegally retrenched them vide impugned order dated May 3, 2007. Relying on Term No. 8 of V.R.S., and Term No. 3 (xv) of the Revised V.R.S., it is stated by the petitioners that they were entitled to the benefits of V.R.S.
(3.) The respondents have pleaded in nutshell that the petitioners were casual employees, and they were not covered either under V.R.S., or under Revised V.R.S. It is further pleaded by the respondents in their counter affidavits that only those badli/work charge or Muster Roll Employees were given benefits of V.R.S., or that of Revised V.R.S., whose services had been regularized. As to the retrenchment, it is stated that without there being any work in the unit of the undertaking at Rishikesh, the retrenchment had become necessary of the casual labours who could not be regularized in services. Those who were regularized had already been given benefit of V.R.S./Revised V.R.S. It is stated that the petitioners Bachan Singh, Sandhya Devi, Bal Bahadur, Ramnath and Vimla Dimri earlier pursued the following industrial dispute before the Labour
Whether the action of the employer in not regularizing 22 workmen and not granting them wage scale and other benefits given to the regular employees is unjustified and/or illegal?
Though, said dispute was decided in favour of the petitioners by the Labour Court but this Court vide its order dated September 30, 2001 (M/S) modified the same holding that the petitioners could not have been regularized but they were entitled to continue till their age of superannuation, and be paid wages. It is also stated in the counter affidavits that aggrieved by said order, the respondents challenged same before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4996/2006, which was decided by said Court vide its order dated 16.11.2006, setting aside the orders passed by the Labour Court and the High Court. The Supreme Court observed in said appeal that the petitioners being casual labours were not entitled to regularization".;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.