- (1.) V. K. Shukla, J. M/s. Muir Mills, a unit of National Textile Corpora tion (U. P.) Ltd. Kanpur, has approached this Court, questioning the validity of order dated 31-7-2006 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour, Court-l, Kanpur in proceeding under Section 33-C (2) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
(2.) BRIEF background of the case is that M/s Muir Mills was earlier owned and controlled by the private management and thereafter due to mismanagement and labour problem, the mill in question became sick and was closed. Its manage ment was earlier taken over by the Government of India under the Industrial (De velopment and Regulation) Act, 1952 vide Gazette Notification dated 22-12-1965. Subsequent to the same, the mill was nationalized by the Government of India under the Sick Textile Undertaking (Nationalization) Act, 1974 (Act No. 57 of 1974 ). After nationalization by the Central Government, the petitioner mill alongwith its entire property stood vested in the Central Government under Section 3 (1) Act No. 57 of 1974. Under Section 3 (2) of the said Act, the Mill stood transferred and vested in the National Textile Corporation, and under Section 6 (2) of the said Act, the mill thereafter stood transferred to its subsidiary Textile Corporation known as National Textile Corporation, U. P. Ltd. , as such the mill in question stood trans ferred and vested in the National Textile Corporation (U. P.) limited with effect from the appointed day i. e. 1-4-1974. After nationalization of the mill, inspite of large amount of money being pumped by the Central Government, production of the mill deteriorated by every passing year, and consequently, the Central Govern ment stopped providing finance and production activity completely came to a halt with effect from 1-4-1991. National Textile Corporation, UP. Ltd. has 11 units, including the petitioner mill, and in order to work out a scheme for revival of the unit, matter was referred to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) under the provisions of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruc tion Act, 1985, and the case was registered as Reference No. 504 of 1993, and the National Textile Corporation Ltd. , including petitioner, had been declared as sick unit. The BIFR vide its order dated 21-3-2002 framed voluntary rehabilitation scheme for the National Textile Corporation, U. P. Ltd. under which 9 out of 11 units of the Corporation were proposed to be closed and modified voluntary retire ment scheme (MVRS) was introduced. The said scheme was approved by the Board of Directors and the same was made effective with effect from 1 -1 -2002. In petitioner mill same was made effective with effect from 13-6-2002. Respondent-workmen of both the writ petitions, after going through the terms of MVRS, moved application for voluntary retirement under their signatures their request had been accepted and the amount which was due after calculation was duly paid and the same was even accepted by them, without raising any objection and a certificate of declaration was also given by them that the same was full and final settlement towards MVRS and no amount remained unpaid from the mill, and thereafter, the respondent-workmen had no concern with the establishment in question. How ever, thereafter application was moved under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, claiming amount towards Ex-gratia on the ground that wrong calculation had been done. Said claim was registered and the said application was allowed by contending that wrong calculation was made by applying wrong formula, as such the amount in question was directed to be paid. At this juncture present writ petitions have been filed. After counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged, present writ petitions have been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties. Sri DP. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended with vehe mence that in the present case once the respondent-workmen had accepted voluntary retirement scheme and had certified that each and every amount due under the scheme was paid, then it was not at all open to them to have moved application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1974 and the Labour Court has clearly misdirected itself in entertaining the claim and allowing the same, as such the impugned order in question is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed.
(3.) SRI S. F. A. Naqvi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-workmen, on the other hand, contended that this was plain and simple case of computation and as wrong formula had been applied while computing Ex-gratia amount as such said error has been rectified, and consequently, no interference is required. After respective arguments have been advanced,factual position which emerges is to the effect that Modified Voluntary Retirement Scheme (MVRS) had been introduced in the petitioner establishment with effect from 13-6-2002 and under the said MVRS, there was clear cut condition stipulated in respect of cal culation of Ex-gratia amount and the said amount was to be calculated by reck oning 30 days in a month. Clause 3. 1. 6 of the MVRS is being quoted below: "3. 1. 6 For the purpose of reckoning a month while calculating Ex-gratia amount, it shall be reckoned as 30 days in a month. Further, compensation for proportionate month is also to be taken into account for calculation for the Ex-gratia. ";