WA 160/2011 BEFORE HON BLE MR JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.D.AGARWAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER( CAV) B.D.AGARWAL,J. Even after more than 25 years of retrenchment, the workers of the Loktak Hydroel ectric Project of Manipur, N.H.P.C. are pursuing their legal remedy to get re-em ployment. Having been unsuccessful in the conciliatory proceeding, Reference und er Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Industrial Tribunal, Guw ahati and in the writ proceeding, the workers association have filed this appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 22.6.2010 passed in WP ( C) No. 1834 of 2007. 2. We have heard Mr. N. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant. None appeared for the respondents. 3. We have gone through the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge and other documents annexed to the writ proceeding. 4. As could be gathered from the documents filed, the work charged and regular employees engaged by the respondents in various projects were retrenched during the period 1982 to 1984 due to completion/commissioning of Loktak Hydroe lectric Project in Manipur. Initially, the N.H.P.C. introduced a \Voluntary Retr enchment Scheme\ under Order No.V/6/82 dated 3.2.1982. It was followed by a \Lib eralised Voluntary Retrenchment Scheme, \floated by the Circular dated 12.7.1984 .On the basis of these schemes, nearly 300 workers were retrenched on voluntary retirement. Long thereafter, the workers’ association raised a dispute before th e Regional Labour Commissioner, Guwahati on 13.5.2000. Having been not successfu l in the conciliation proceeding, the Labour Commissioner informed the Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, who referred the dispute to the Tribunal under Sectio n 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 vide Notification dated 8.8.2002. The T ribunal dismissed the reference vide judgment and award dated 6.12.2006, inter alia, holding that the reference was not adjudicable since the voluntary scheme did not confine to Loktak Down Stream Hydro Electric Project. Besides this, the Tribunal also held that the workers were not forced to accept the retrenchment scheme nor the management deprived the workers from their legal dues. Similar views have been taken by the learned Single Judge. Referring to some recitation of the scheme, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondents were bound to re-engage the retrenched workers in their new projects. At the same time, Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant also pleaded that the workers have not received their entire dues/benefits under the schemes. This statement was made on the basis of certain statements given by a witness in the cross-examination. 5. As noted earlier, the respondents had floated two scheme. The first scheme was circulated on 3.2.1982 and the second scheme was circulated on 12.7.1984. In the first scheme, there is no whisper of re-employment. Contrary to that, under Clause 6.2 in the first scheme, the N.H.P.C. made it clear that an employee released on voluntary retrenchment will not be eligible to seek re-employment in the same project. In the second scheme dated 12.7.1984, there was an indication that efforts will be made for re-employment in the following language. \2. While efforts will continue to be made for redeployment of the surplus manpower to the extent of requirement in other Projects of the Corporation, as hithertofore, however keeping in view the scope of avenues for further redeployment in other projects, being some what limited, it has been found desirable to offer additional benefits to the surplus employees in this Project, who may opt for release under the Voluntary Retrenchment scheme.\ 6. In the aforesaid scheme also, in Clause 5.2 it was re-iterated that an Page No. 4 employee released under \Liberalised Voluntary Retrement Scheme\ will not be eligible to seek re-employment in Loktak project or in any other project of the Corporation. From the photocopy of the said scheme, annexed to the memo of appeal it appears that Clause 5.2 was amended on 28.9.1984 to delete the con dition of ineligibility in any other project. Be that as it may, the language of proposed re-employment couched in the operative part of the scheme read with Cl ause 5.2 cannot be termed or construed as any undertaking by the N.H.P.C. to re- engage/re-deploy the retrenched workers. On the other hand the respondents exten ded certain additional benefits to the workers, keeping in mind remote possibili ty of their re-employment. 7. With regard to the allegation of forced retrenchment, the learned Single Judge has categorically stated that neither coercive methods were adopted to re trench the workers nor was there any scope for their re-engagement. The relevant findings in this regard of the learned Single Judge are re-produced below for r eady reference: \There is another aspect of the matter. The workmen are not in employment and had been allowed to go on accepting the Voluntary Retrenchment Scheme during the period from 1982 to 1984. After nearly 20 years, there is no question of their re-engagement in any other projects, a fact which the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admitted. However, he submitted that the benefits still payable to the workmen under the scheme should be paid to them. However, in absence of any material to show that the workmen are still left to be provided with some more benefits under the scheme and/or they had not been provided with the benefits as envisaged under the scheme, it is not possible to issue any direction to provide any further benefits to the workmen under the scheme.\ 8. We have also noticed that even after expiry of voluntary retrenchment scheme, the General Secretary of the Loktak Project Employees’ and Workers’ Federation had submitted a representation to the Management to extend the L.V.R Scheme beyond February, 1989. Had the workers been retrenched forcibly or by alluring them with false promises and without paying their legal dues such a prayer would not have been made by the employees’ federation. Besidesthis, it is the admitted position that a large number of workers (nearly 300 workers) did not opt for retrenchment within a short period to take a view that the retrenchment were done forcibly or that retirements were not taken voluntarily. 9. It is true that one of the witnesses of the Management namely, Sri M. Iboyima Singh has stated in the cross-examination that he does not know whether the amounts mentioned in the written statement regarding payment to the workers are correct or not and whether those amount were already paid to the workers. In our considered opinion, the said statement is not enough to render a finding that the dues/benefits due to the workers were not paid. 10. It is the settled position of law that the writ appeal being an in-house appeal, the judgment of a learned Single Judge cannot be interfered with, unless there are patent illegalities or the judgment is de-hors to the established law. It is also the established principle of law that even if two views are possible, the view taken by the learned Single Judge cannot be interfered with. In the case before us, the case of the workers’ association fell at three stages, i.e statutory conciliation proceeding as well as reference before the Industrial Tribunal and also in the writ proceeding. We do not find any sustainable ground to interfere with concurrent findings of three authorities successively. 11. For the foregoing reasons and more particularly, keeping in mind that there was inordinate delay in referring the dispute before the conciliatory authority and other aspects of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. 12. Consequently, writ appeal stands dismissed.