IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14102 of 2008 TRILOKI NATH VERMA, son of Late-Sukhdeo Prasad, resident of village- Haraji, P.S.-Awatar Nagar, District-Saran. ……Petitioner Versus 1. The Union Of India through Chief Managing Director, Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Limited-cum-Joint Secretary, Fertilizer Ministry, Shashtry Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. The General Manager, Incharge, Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Limited (HFCL), Barouni Fertilizer Factory, a Government of India undertaking At @ P.O. Barouni Urverk Nagar P.S.-Barouni, District- Begusarai(Bihar). …….Respondents. With CWJC No.14588 of 2008 KUMUDA NAND MISHRA, son of late-Sukhadeo Mishra, Resident of village-Phatehpur, P.S.-Narpatganj, District-Araria. …….Petitioner Versus 1. The Union Of India through Chief Managing Director, Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Limited-cum-Joint Secretary, Fertilizer Ministry, Shashtry Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. The General Manager, Incharge, Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Limited (HFCL), Barouni Fertilizer Factory, a Government of India undertaking At @ P.O. Barouni Urverk Nagar P.S.-Barouni, District- Begusarai(Bihar). ……Respondents With CWJC No.14592 of 2008 SHEO SHANKAR CHOUDHARY, son of Late-Ram Lochan Choudhary, resident of village-Satsangnagar, P.S.-Pupari, District-Sitamarhi. ……Petitioner Versus 1. The Union Of India through Chief Managing Director, Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Limited-cum-Joint Secretary, Fertilizer Ministry, Shashtry Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. The General Manager, Incharge, Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Limited (HFCL), Barouni Fertilizer Factory, a Government of India undertaking At @ P.O. Barouni Urverk Nagar P.S.-Barouni, District- Begusarai(Bihar). …….Respondents. With CWJC No.14650 of 2008 RAMA KANT KUMAR, son of Late-Nathuni Kumar, Resident of Village- Bharaul, P.S.-Bachhawara, District-Samastipur. …….Petitioner Versus 1. The Union Of India through Chief Managing Director, Hindustan 2 Fertilizer Corporation Limited-cum-Joint Secretary, Fertilizer Ministry, Shashtry Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. The General Manager, Incharge, Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Limited (HFCL), Barouni Fertilizer Factory, a Government of India undertaking At @ P.O. Barouni Urverk Nagar P.S.-Barouni, District- Begusarai(Bihar). …….Respondents With CWJC No.14671 of 2008 MAHENDRA PRASAD, son of Late-Nand Lal Prasad, Resident of Village- Piparhi, P.S.-Bazaa Patti, District-Sitamarhi. ……Petitioner Versus 1. The Union Of India through Chief Managing Director, Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Limited-cum-Joint Secretary, Fertilizer Ministry, Shashtry Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. The General Manager, Incharge, Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Limited (HFCL), Barouni Fertilizer Factory, a Government of India undertaking At @ P.O. Barouni Urverk Nagar P.S.-Barouni, District- Begusarai(Bihar). ……Respondents. With CWJC No.14685 of 2008 RAM BILASH BHAGAT, son of Late-Bindeshwari Bhagat, Resident of village-Gamharia Bazar, P.S.-Gamharia Bazar, District-Madhepura. ……Petitioner Versus 1. The Union Of India through Chief Managing Director, Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Limited-cum-Joint Secretary, Fertilizer Ministry, Shashtry Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. The General Manager, Incharge, Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Limited (HFCL), Barouni Fertilizer Factory, a Government of India undertaking At @ P.O. Barouni Urverk Nagar P.S.-Barouni, District- Begusarai(Bihar). …….Respondents. With CWJC No.14703 of 2008 SURENDRA PATHAK, son of late-Janardan Pathak, Resident of village- Raghunandanpur, P.S.-Bhawanpur, District-Begusarai. ……Petitioner Versus 1. The Union Of India through Chief Managing Director, Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Limited-cum-Joint Secretary, Fertilizer Ministry, Shashtry Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. The General Manager, Incharge, Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Limited (HFCL), Barouni Fertilizer Factory, a Government of India undertaking At @ P.O. Barouni Urverk Nagar P.S.-Barouni, District- Begusarai(Bihar). …….Respondents. 3 With CWJC No.15134 of 2008 SACHIDA NAND PRASAD SINHA, son of Late-Ram Nagina Prasad, Resident of village-Narahan, P.S.-Bibhutipur, District-Samastipur. ……Petitioner Versus 1. The Union Of India through Chief Managing Director, Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Limited-cum-Joint Secretary, Fertilizer Ministry, Shashtry Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. The General Manager, Incharge, Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Limited (HFCL), Barouni Fertilizer Factory, a Government of India undertaking At @ P.O. Barouni Urverk Nagar P.S.-Barouni, District- Begusarai(Bihar). ……Respondents. ----------- 04. 05.08.2009 The petitioners were employees of the Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Limited (HFCL) at Barouni in the State of Bihar. Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Limited is a Government of India undertaking under the control of Ministry of Chemical and Fertilizer, Department of Fertilizer, Government of India. Government of India finding the unit to be non viable decided to close it. For facilitating the closing down of the unit, HFCL offered Voluntary Separation Scheme(VSS) to the employees as well as Voluntary Retirement Scheme stipulated that employees could opt for Voluntary Retirement or Voluntary Separation Scheme, failing which they would be governed by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and in particular provisions with regard to retrenchment therein. Petitioners of these writ petitions opted for Voluntary Separation Scheme. One of the conditions with regard to compensation which was calculatable under VSS 4 was ex-gratia payment. This was inter alia on basis of 45 days emoluments for each complete year of service. In relation to those employees who had not completed thirty years of service, it was provided that they would be eligible for maximum of sixty months salary as compensation. A dispute arose whether in the service period the training period would also be included or not. For sometime the stand of the HFCL was that training period would not be included for calculating the service tenure. Ultimately the Government of India took a decision in the matter and communicated to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of HFCL vide their communication dated 22nd of May, 2007 in which it had been decided that the period spent in training to be as a part of service and may be included for the purpose of ex-gratia and gratuity subject to the condition that this benefit will be extended as a one time special measure for those who have accepted VSS and would not apply to other employees. This is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Petitioners asserted that notwithstanding this decision though large number of workers have been paid their dues accordingly taking training period as a part of their regular service, the petitioners have been discriminated and their due amount is being withheld on the same very ground. Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, learned counsel 5 appearing on behalf of the HFCL submits that the Corporation can not dispute the position as decided by the Government of India. He very fairly admits that the claim of the petitioners in these writ petitions can not be opposed but in fairness to Mr. Singh, I must notice his defence in favour of withholding payments. He submits that there is another dispute with these eight petitioners and others in which orders adverse to the Corporation have been passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner and the Assistant Labour Commissioner. Those orders are pending and challenged by the Corporation before this Court and those writ petitions have been heard and order reserved. During pendency of these writ petitions, the orders of RLC and ALC have been complied with and certain payments made inter alia to these eight writ petitioners. He submits that the Corporation is confident of succeeding in those writ petitions. In case they succeed in those writ petitions then the amount paid inter alia to these eight writ petitioners as per orders of RLC and ALC of those writ petitions would be recoverable. It is for ensuring that recovery that they have withheld payments which are due in the present proceedings. This is the only justification being given for not making the payment to the petitioners. On query both learned counsels agreed that the payment that is due to the petitioners and is in question in 6 the present proceedings before this Court would be above Rs. 1.50 lacs each and in most of the cases above Rs. 2 lacs whereas the refund if the other group of writ petitions are allowed would be not in excess of Rs. 50,000/- per person. Having considered the matter, in my view, this Court can not take note of the other writ proceedings which have been argued and in which orders have been reserved. Any protection that HFCL wanted, it was open to them to seek in those writ proceedings because they were writ petitioners and there they had to seeks appropriate orders for securing their money in those proceedings. No such protection having been obtained therein, they can not seek that protection in these proceedings which are not interconnected. This Court would be exceeding its jurisdiction in entertaining any such plea. Moreover, if figures as quoted above are to be seen then it is clear that HFCL is holding back four times amount of money which could possibly be recoverable by them. That on the face of it is arbitrary. Even the statement of Mr. Singh for HFCL that they are ready to pay the “admitted amount” can not be accepted for the simple reason that the “admitted amount” is not the stipulated amount which they may be entitled to be hold back. This Court can not permit such a stand. In this Court the only dispute is whether 7 petitioners are entitled for payment of ex-gratia and gratuity calculated by including the training period in their service tenure. As that issue having been decided by the Central Government in favour of the petitioners and very fairly not disputed by HFCL, I have no option but to allow the writ petition and direct that for calculating different amounts under VSS, the service tenure would include the training period as decided by the Central Government. Sums found thus payable shall be paid to the petitioners within one month from production of the copy of this Order before the appropriate authority of HFCL along with interest @ 6% from the time it was due as per letter of the Central Government dated 22.05.2007. In case the amount are not paid within one month as aforesaid the same shall be payable with interest @ 8% from the time VSS became effective. With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Shageer (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)