HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 1310 of 2003 DATED: 17.02.2011 Between: L. Venkateswarulu and five others .. Petitioners And 1. The General Manager 2. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bangalore 3. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, New Delhi .. Respondents O R D E R:- The petitioners are retired employees of National Textiles Corporation. The 1st petitioner was appointed as Clerk on 01.06.1992 and promoted to the post of Technical Assistant in the year 1980. The 2nd petitioner was appointed as Technical Assistant on 30.08.1974 and the 3rd and 4th petitioners were appointed as Technical Assistants on 10.01.1978. During the course of their employment, initially, a Voluntary Retirement Scheme was introduced, and later, the same was changed as Modified Voluntary Retirement Scheme (hereinafter referred to as “the Scheme”) in the year 2001, to rationalize surplus manpower of the organization and reduce its losses. Options were called for from all the employees of the National Textiles Corporation, and it was made clear that if no option is exercised by the employees, they shall be treated as retrenched employees. The petitioners had no alternative except to exercise the option as stipulated by the management. One month after they exercised their options, cheques along with calculation memo were issued for the benefits for which the petitioners were entitled to as per the scheme. It is stated that the petitioners are entitled to the grant of additional ex-tratia at the rate of cent percent as per the Scheme. The respondents have calculated both ex-gratia as per the eligibility of the petitioners, and also an equal amount of additional ex-gratia. Now, the grievance of the petitioners is that even though the petitioners are entitled to the additional ex gratia as contemplated under the Scheme, respondents have not paid the same to them. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have filed the present with petition. The 1st respondent filed counter affidavit stating that the averments made by the petitioners that the Ministerial Staff had wage revision, the workers had a wage revision settlement under ID Act and the Casual Labour were given benefit of wage revision and also additional ex-gratia at the rate of 100% does not have any bearing on the case of the petitioners. The Ministerial Staff Settlement dated 28.05.1991 is with regard to the payment of rationalization benefit of Rs.142/-. That is an agreement to have reduction in the strength of the employees in the Mills and it was sharing of savings by the workmen and the management as per the terms of the settlement. This would not amount to any wage revision. In fact, in the wage revision, the scale of pay and basic wages would be revised whereas in rationalization, only the benefit available is an ad-hoc payment. This will be considered separately and do not have any reference to wage revision. With regard to the Workers Settlement dated 18.07.1990, it is the adhoc payment of Rs.60/- identical in the nature to the Ministerial Staff Settlement. This amount was agreed to be set off against the proposed minimum wage recommended by the A.P. Textile Wage Committee and also it would not amount to Pay Scale Revision. Respondent No.3 had also clarified vide Lr.No.DHR/55/(01)/02 dated 24.04.2002, wherein discussion between the NTC Management and the Union representatives was held on 18.04.2002 in the presence of the Secretary (Textiles) and the Hon’ble Minister for Textiles, Government of India, clarifying that the payment under Notification dated 07.02.1991 issued by the Government of A.P. recommending minimum wages for workers in the Textile Industry in Andhra Pradesh will not from part of the salary for the purpose of calculation of ex-gratia compensation and the employees will, therefore, be eligible for 100% additional compensation as per clause 3.1.2 of the Scheme. It is further averred that as per the clarification issued in the Scheme, it is made clear that any payments made till 31.12.1986 will be taken as forming part of salary for the purpose of calculation of ex- gratia compensation and any adhoc award paid from 01.01.1987 will not be taken into account for the purpose of salary. Further, any increase given under the payment of Minimum Wages Act by a notification by the respective State Government is not to be treated as Wage Revision. The amount paid from 01.01.1987 will not be taken for calculation for ex-gratia. In case of casual labour with regard to the proceedings dated 02.07.2001 in regard to minimum rates of wages to non-scheduled employees in Warangal District for the year 2001-2002, has been clarified in the Clarification Scheme dated 26.03.2002 at clause 10. In view of the above clarifications given, none of the amounts refer to the Wage Revision, and hence, the workers were given 100% additional ex-gratia. But, the petitioners were under Central D.A. Pattern and got Pay Revision under the 4th and 5th pay commission recommendations, and hence, the petitioners are not eligible to get additional ex-gratia as per clause 3.1.2 of the Scheme, as such, they were entitled only to ex-gratia as per clause 3.1.1. of the Scheme. Therefore, the respondents have not shown any discrimination or violated the principles of natural justice as stated by the petitioners. It was only a policy decision which was followed by the respondents. The petitioners have approached the Hon’ble Court with mala fide intentions to gain the sympathy with false allegations that only these petitioners were deprived out of 265 employees. The petitioners have come with unclean hands for seeking order of this Court which cannot be entertained and permitted under law. The learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously contended that the method adopted in respect of the workmen as well as Ministerial Staff is calculating ex-gratia for the left-over period of service and granting equal amount as additional ex-gratia, which was calculated after deducting the benefit they derived on the revision of pay scales after 01.01.1987, but in the case of the petitioners, it is simply denied on the ground that there was a revision of pay-scales after 01.01.1987. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to additional ex-gratia. He has further contended that the respondents have adopted different method of calculation for different class of employees. While one method is adopted in the case of the Workmen and Ministerial staff, different method is adopted in respect of the petitioners, who are technical staff, which is nothing but a clear discrimination. The learned counsel for the respondents has contended that since there was a revision in the pay scales of the petitioners after 01.01.1987, the petitioners are not entitled to additional ex-gratia which is equivalent to the ex-gratia paid for the left-over service. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. It may be necessary to notice a few clauses of the Scheme which read as under: 1.4: Modified Voluntary Retirement Scheme (MVRS):- Regular/permanent employees, Badli/Substitute/Temporary/Casual workers (by whatever name called and are being paid regular wages) within the sanctioned strength and whose name appear in the muster roll of NTC Mills as indicated in para 1.3 above are eligible to opt for voluntary retirement by tendering resignation from the post held in NTC in the prescribed form. The benefits under the scheme are given at para 3.1. The Trainees under any scheme are not eligible for MVRS. 3.1.1: Ex-gratia payment equivalent to 35 days for every completed year of service and 25 days for the balance of service left until superannuation. The compensation will be subject to a minimum of Rs.25,000/- or 250 days salary whichever is higher. However, this compensation shall not exceed the sum of the salary that the employee would draw at the prevailing level for the balance of the period left before superannuation. 3.1.2: The Additional ex-gratia compensation payable to an employee shall be as under: i) where there was no wage revision after 01.01.1987, additional compensation of 100% of the eligible ex-gratia amount as per para 3.1.1. ii) where there was no wage revision after 1.1.92, additional compensation of 30% of the eligible ex-gratia amount as per para 3.1.1. And clarification are issued thereafter at clause Nos.7 and 10 which are extracted hereunder: Point Raised: The compensation as per Clause 3.1.1 of the scheme shall not exceed the sum of the salary that the employee would draw at the prevailing level for the balance period left for superannuation. In such case, will the company pay additional compensation of 100% or 50% as the case may be beyond the sum of the salary that the employee would have drawn? Clarification/Position: The compensation shall not exceed sum of the salary that the employee would have drawn at the prevailing level for the balance period for superannuation. This will not include the additional ex-gratia compensation payable under clause 3.1.2. Point Raised: Whether increase given to any employee under the minimum wages notification should be taken as revision of wages? Clarification/Position: No. Any increase given under the payment of Minimum Wages Act by a notification by the respective State Government is not to be treated as Wage Revision. The amount paid from 01.01.1987 will not be taken for calculation for ex-gratia. From a careful analysis of the material placed on record, it is obvious that in case of Workmen and Ministerial Staff, the method prescribed was adopted, whereas in case of the petitioners, they were simply denied on the ground that their salaries were revised after 01.01.1987. Even if the salaries of the petitioners were revised after 01.01.1987 whatever benefit they derive after 01.01.1987, ought to have been deducted from their salary and the ex-gratia could have been calculated for the rest of the left-over period for superannuation of each individual as was done in case of the Workmen and Ministerial Staff. It is a clear case where the respondents have failed in granting additional ex-gratia to the petitioners as per their entitlement in accordance with the Scheme. Under those circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the respondents need to reconsider the case of the petitioners on par with the Workman and Ministerial Staff, who are also the beneficiaries under the Modified Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2001. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to calculate the additional ex-gratia payable to the petitioners as indicated above and as was calculated in the case of the Workmen and Ministerial Staff of the organization. This exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V. RAMULU, J 17th February, 2011 Note: Furnish copy in a week B/o bcj