P.K. Musahary, J. - (1.) The petitioner is a registered Trade Union affiliated to INTUC constituted mainly for looking after the well being of its members working in the establishment of Nagaland Pulp and Paper Company Ltd. ('NPPC') which was incorporated sometime in September 1991 as a public limited company as a joint venture between the Government of Nagaland and Hindustan Paper with equity participation 12.5% and 87.5%, respectively. The HPC is a Government of India Enterprise under the Department of Enterprise, Ministry of Heavy Industry having two units, namely, the Nagaon Paper Mill and the Cachar Paper Mill. It has also three subsidiaries namely the Hindustan News Print Ltd., Mandya National Paper Mill and the NPPC.
(2.) The NPPC as a subsidiary of HPC started commercial production sometime in July 1982 but it soon began incurring operating losses. Eventually in April 1992 a reference was made to the Bureau of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ('BIFR') under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 ('SICA'). It was declared a sick company and the Industrial Development Bank of India ('IDBI') was appointed as Operating Agency ('OA') for preparing a rehabilitation scheme for its revival. The NPPC stopped commercial production in October 1992 and since then its workmen are sitting idle. Some rehabilitation packages were formulated which yielded results. As a result, in November 1995 the NPPC was discharged by the BIFR from the purview of SICA as a sick company. However, it continued to remain under the purview of the Board for Industrial and Financial BIFR under section 23 of the SICA. Unfortunately, the positive development in the NPPC did not last long and a reference was again made to the BIFR in May, 1998 and it was again declared sick in August 1998. Ultimately the BIFR passed an order on 4.3.2002 for winding up of NPPC. The said winding up order was set aside by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ('AAIFR') on 20th April, 2006 and the matter was remanded to BIFR for passing appropriate orders in terms with proposal submitted by the Union of India. Then a rehabilitation scheme was filed on 17.1.2007 by the IDBI and thereupon a Draft Rehabilitation Scheme ('DRS') was prepared and circulated to all concerned for their consent. The BIFR vide its order dated 29.5.2007 accorded sanction to the said rehabilitation scheme. The Union of India on 17.7.2007 released fund of Rs.54.60 crores in the first phase for revival of the NPCC.
(3.) After receipt of sanction of fund, the workers union of NPPC moved an application on 22.5.2008 before the BIFR for payment of arrears of salary/wage of the employees/workers in terms of 1992 and 1997 pay revision. The BIFR vide order dated 22.5.2008 directed the NPCC to ensure implementation of the 1997 pay/wage revision to its workers/employees from the date of sanction, i.e., with effect from 29.5.2007. At that stage, respondent No.3, on behalf of NPPC issued a circular dated 30.8.2008 laying down certain criterion to identify the persons who should be prepared mentally to go on voluntary retirement. Another circular dated 2.12.2008 was issued asking the employees, who fall within the criteria identified by earlier circular dated 30.8.2008, to apply for the Voluntary Retirement Scheme ('VRS') on or before 20.12.2008 by 5 p.m. And yet another circular was issued on 3.6.2009 informing the interested employees to apply on or before 20.6.2009 by 5 p.m. The aforesaid 3 circulars marked as Annexures 'G', 'H' and 'I' respectively are under challenge in this writ proceedings. Before filing this writ petition, the petitioner union filed representation dated 15.7.2009 addressed to respondent No.2 apprising him that the impugned circulars have not been issued in compliance to the Draft Rehabilitation Scheme (DRS) and the sanctioned scheme approved by the BIFR, particularly under the head of "cost of scheme of means of finance" which refers only to VRS of 100 employees involving expenditure of Rs.350 lakhs. Without responding to above representation the respondent NPCC issued 106 communications dated 27.7.2009 to 106 members of the petitioner union informing that the sanctioned scheme envisages representation of 100 employees as the Mill requires only skilled personnel to operate the modern electronic gadgets and control system upon its revival. By the said individual communications the members of the petitioner union have been asked to opt for VRS with effect from 31.12.2008. All the 106 members of the petitioner union submitted reply expressing unwillingness to opt for the said VRS. As such the members of the petitioner union are apprehending that their salaries would be stopped and they would be subjected to retrenchment or compulsory retirement.;