Saurabh Shyam Shamshery - (1.) Uttar Pradesh State Textile Corporation Ltd., (petitioner no.1), which is a Government Company under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as the "Petitioner Corporation" which is presently under liquidation and petitioner no.2, Uttar Pradesh Vastra Katai Nigam Mill is the mill of the petitioner no.1, situated at Jhansi through their Managing Director have filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs: "(i)Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned Award dated 28.08.2014 published on 14.10.2015, passed by the Respondent no.1, in Case No.02/2013. (ii)Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents not to press recovery against the petitioners in pursuance of impugned Award dated 28.08,2014 published on 14.10.2015, passed by the Respondent no.1, in Case No.02/2013. (iii)Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the cirumstances of the case. (iv)To award costs in favour of the petitioners."
(2.) Necessary facts for adjudication of the present writ petition are as follows: (i)The petitioner Corporation was declared as a sick industry with effect from 02.2.1995 and the matter is pending before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as the "BIFR") wherein Indian Finance Corporation of India (IFCI) has been appointed as operating agency by the order dated 02.2.1995 passed by the BIFR.under No.PSU (S) 609/94. (ii)There is no dispute that presently no employees are working on the rolls of the petitioner corporation except the Managing Director nominated by the State Government and the holding of operational works of the petitioner Corporation are being looked after by the officials and employees of the U.P. State Spining Corporation Ltd. under the G.O. No.11.9.2000. (iii)The BIFR.has directed that modified draft rehabilitation scheme as approved by the State Government be submitted before the Bank of Baroda. Presently, the said scheme is under consideration before the Bank of Baroda. The workers of the petitioner corporation being under liquidation by their own will opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme by submitting applications on different dates in the year 2001 and the workman working at the mill situated at Jhansi and who qualified under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme were paid the VRS dues and those who did not qualify were paid under the head of retrenchment compensation and gratuity in the year 2001 itself. (iv)The said amount has been received by the workers without any protest. Some of the applications and receipts of amount are on record and the same has not been disputed by the respondent workman represented through Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh (respondent no.2). The said voluntary retirement scheme is a scheme governed by certain notifications issued by the State Government. (v)According to the petitioners, in order to clear the dues which occurred after November, 1997 and till 14.3.2001, the Corporation requested the State Government to sanction the amount of Rs.15.51 crores and the request is still pending. Some employees of the petitioner corporation raised a dispute through the respondent Union to declare them as a permanent workman and to grant all consequential benefits w.e.f. 1.1.1986. (vi)The State Government referred the following issues under Section 4-K of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act 1947") to the Labour Court, Jhansi under a notification dated 27.4.2012. (vii)The said dispute was registered as Case No.2/2013. A written statement was filed on behalf of the respondent Union wherein they have stated that the status of the workmen was treated as permanent workman as they have worked for 240 days in a year. Similarly, written statement has also been filed on behalf of the petitioner corporation wherein it has been stated that the respondent employees who were working in the mill at Jhansi, have already been paid the entire amount in pursuance of the VRS applied by the respondent employees. It was also submitted that as the petitioner corporation is under liquidation, no payment whatsoever could be paid to the employees till the final decision is taken by the BIFR, if still pending towards the VRS Scheme. (viii)Written statement was also filed on behalf of the respondent employees. It was further submitted that the employees have not submitted any documentary evidence in support of claim made by them. It was also specifically asserted that the amount of Rs.15.51 crores has been sought from the State Government to pay the outstanding dues, however the said amount has not been paid to the petitioner corporation till date. (ix)One of the employees has appeared before the labour court on behalf of all the respondent employees and stated on oath that each of the employee represented through Union in the present matter has worked for more than 240 days in each calendar year between 10 years to 20 years and due to completion of 240 days, the respondent employees have been given the status of permanent employees. (x)The Presiding Officer of the Labour Court U.P. Jhansi by the impugned order dated 28.8.2014 decided the Industrial Dispute Case No.02/2013 holding that the respondent employees shall fall under the category of permanent employees and they are entited for all the benefits for the same. The Labour Court came to such conclusion only on the ground that the petitioner corporation has failed to produce any evidence to contradict the statement made that all the 81 employees of the respondent Union have worked for 240 days in one calendar year. The Labour Court also held that it has not been denied that in order to pay the outstanding amount to the employees of the Corporation amount of Rs.15.51 crores has been asked by the State Government, therefore, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the said amount also includes amount required to be paid to the respondent employees. The said award is impugned in the present petition for writ. (xi)In pursuance of the said award, the respondent Union has filed an application under sections 6-H, 6-H (2) of the Act, 1947 and Section 33 (1) and (2) of the Act, 1947 along with the computation chart for the payment of the outstanding amount as per the award. On the basis of such application, the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jhansi has issued notice to the petitioner corporation under Section 6-H (1) of the Act, 1947 for recovery of amount of Rs.52,46,12,76/-. This notice is also impugned in the present petition for writ.
(3.) This court has passed the following order on 2.3.2016: "Heard Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents. While assailing the impugned award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jhansi learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a sick company and relationship of employer and employee had ceased, therefore the Labour court has erred in passing the impugned award holding that the members of the respondent union are entitled to get demanded benefit. Matter requires scrutiny. Issue notice. Notices on behalf of respondents have been accepted by the office of learned Chief Standing Counsel therefore notice need not be served again to the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents is granted six weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter. List thereafter. As an interim measure without prejudice to the right and contention of the parties, till the next date of listing operation of the impugned award dated 28.8.2014 passed by respondent no. 1 in Case No. 02/2013 shall remain stayed.";