- (1.) HEARD Sri R. C. Saxena,Sri S. N. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri J. N. Mathur, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri V.S. Tripathi for the State and Sri Manish Kumar for U.P.Handloom Corporation. Useful assistance was provided by the Law Trainee of this Court Km. Twishi Srivastava also. The facts as unfolded by the petitioners in the writ petition are as follows:- The U.P. State Handloom Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) was established in the year 1973 by the State Government as a Government Company registered under Section 617 of the Company Act. Affairs of the corporation and conduct of business are managed by the State Government. The Board of Directors consists of the officers of the State of U.P. A member of Indian Administrative Service is appointed as Managing Director.
(2.) PETITIONER had earlier approached this Court by means of writ petition NO.3442 of 1999 (S/S), when the salary of the members of association was not paid from the year 1998 despite taking work from them. This Court passed order dated 2.11.1999 directing that the arrears of salary shall also be paid to the petitioners and if necessary the State Government shall provide fund to the Corporation for making such payment within a period of next 6 weeks from the date the certified copy of the order is produced before the concerned authority. This fact finds mention in annexure -4 at page 48-51. The petitioner/Association filed a contempt petition as Criminal Misc. Case No.75 of 2000 before this Court for non-implementation of the order dated 2.11.1999 in which this Court passed orders directing the personal appearance of Sri C. K. Sharma, the then Principal Secretary, Handloom Corporation, Government of U.P. Sri C. K. Sharma, the then Principal Secretary, Handloom Corporation, Government of U.P., appeared in person before this Court on 19.12.2000 and the contempt Court while exempting the personal appearance of Sri C. K. Sharma, directed him to make certain proposals and also directed that the Handloom Corporation shall arrange the payment of salary to the members of Association and other petitioners. Instead of complying with the order dated 2.11.1999, the opposite parties preferred SLP (Civil) No.18097 of 2001) against the above order dated 2.11.1999 which was dismissed on 13.9.2002. This fact finds mention in annexure -5 at page 52-53. Another writ petition bearing NO.1688 (S/B) of 2002 (U.P. Handloom Employees Association and others Vs. Union of India and others) was filed before this Court. This Court on 7.4.2003 directed the petitioners to give list of its members, who want benefit of voluntary retirement scheme (VRS) so that amount of voluntary retirement scheme may be paid to them. This fact finds mention in annexure -6 at page 54. On 25.4.2003, in compliance of the order dated 7.4.2003, a list of 412 employees who desired VRS as on 31.1.2003 was submitted before this Court and the same was handed over to the Secretary to the Government (Order dated 25.4.2003 as Annexure No.7 at page 55). More than 200 employees further opted VRS but only 20 percent were given VRS vide office memo dated 28.2.2004 (This fact finds mention in annexure -9 at page 74.) The Corporation in a most discriminatory and arbitrary manner accepted only the applications of 181 employees for voluntary retirement out of 412 employees and retained 130 employees in service whose names were included in the list of 412 employees who had opted for VRS. The Corporation arbitrarily retrenched 100 employees despite their option for voluntary retirement. In the meantime one person retired from service. After dismissal of above SLP, this Court vide its order dated 2.11.1999 directed the arrears to be paid within fifteen days from the date of the order failing which Sri V. K. Deewan, Chief Secretary (opposite party No.10) and Sri Ravindra Singh, Secretary Handloom and Textiles, Govt. of U.P. (opposite party No.11) was to appear in person on 19.4.2004. This fact finds mention in annexure -10 at page 75. Since the opposite parties were not inclined to pay the salary and they also wanted to any how save themselves from the contempt proceedings as such in order to get rid of the problem, they decided to cause arbitrary retrenchment of the employees/officers of the Corporation completely ignoring the scheme provided for VRS/compulsory retirement to the inefficient and lazy employees/officers for reducing the man power in 'Yojana'. The opposite parties did not prepare the requisite list of inefficient and lazy employees instead in an arbitrary manner in utmost haste the opposite parties issued a seniority list dated 6.4.2004 prepared on the basis of pay scales. The opposite parties ought to have prepared the seniority list taking into account the nature of the work performed by the employees / officers, their designations and the posts mentioned in their appointment letter (This fact finds mention in annexure -11 at page 76-122).
(3.) THE petitioner No.1 made a representation to the Labour Commissioner, Kanpur on 16.3.2004 apprising him that on account of non payment of arrears of salary and non acceptance of VRS on the ground that the employees are demanding their all dues at the time of VRS, the State Government vide order dated 8.3.2004, directed for utilization of the VRS amount towards the payment of retrenchment compensation (This fact finds mention in annexure -21 at page 162-163). When the Government vide order dated 8.3.2004 directed for utilization of the amount towards the payment of retrenchment compensation, the association submitted a representation dated 16.3.2004 to the Labour Commissioner bringing to her notice that the Government has wrongly directed for utilization of VRS amount towards payment of retrenchment compensation. It was specifically stated in the representation that the employees are still ready to take VRS provided their entire retiral dues, VRS Compensation and outstanding arrears of salary are paid to them at a time. Smt. Anita Bhatnagar Jain, Labour Commissioner, referred the matter to the State Government vide letter dated 12.4.2004, justifying the demand of the association regarding grant of VRS and payment at a time. ( This fact finds mention in annexure -22 at page 164.;