i-'SI'" y^. E^L^^" i">-7 :". a-'' <.. y !&s AF^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 2215 of 2004 PETITIONER L.N.Gupta VERSUS RESPONDENTS Hindustan Steel Works Construction I-td. & Others -^ Post for order on .&''. July, 2008. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION No. 2215 of 2004 L.N.Gupta S/o. Dr. B.S.Gupta, Aged about 60 years, Ex-Section-Officer Zone (Unit) 130 Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Bhilai - Nagar Tah. & Distt. Durg, R7o. Flat No. 10 Opposite Geeta-Temple M.G.Road Kankhal Haridwar (Uttaranchal) VERSUS : 1. Hindustan Steel Works Constmction Ltd. Through: Chairman Cum Managing Director HSCL Regd. Office : 5/1 Commassarit Road, Hastings Calcutta 22. 2. General Manager, Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Bhilai Nagar, Tah. & Distt. Durg (C.G.) 3. Union of India Through Secretary, Department ofSteel, Govt. oflndia, New Delhi. WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDI A SB: Hon'ble SUri Satish K. Aenihotri, J. Present: Shri V.G.Tamaskar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.S.Koshy, Advocate for the respondents 1 aad 2. Shri S.K.Beriwal, Standing Counsel forthe respondent No. 3. ORDER (Passed on ....<3..day ofJuly, 2008) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to releine all the payments ofthe petitioner as claimed by him with interest. 2. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, are that the respondent 1 is a compaiiy incorporated and registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, having ils head office at 1, Shakespear Sarani, 8th Floor Calcutta - 700071. All Ihe shares of the respondent No. 1 were transferred to the Central Governniciit, thus, the respondent No. 1 is a public sector undertaking. At the relev'iiiit time, the petitioner was working on the supervisory post of Section Olliti.'r on the basic pay of Rs. 7600/- plus allowances. The petitioner madc a y <s?1 —•^^-.i. ""'^,1 t^;. / •%(,^ //~^^\,-"? S,, & ''•»'! •%.. 1^..lly ^'; conditional application on 7.12.1999 seeking voluntary retirement. The s;iid application was returned back that the conditional retirement cannol he accepted. Against the rejection of the conditional voluntary retiremi-'nt application, the petitioner preferred a writ petition in the High Courl of Madhya Pradesh being W.P. No. 331 of 2000. The said petition was dispo.sfd ofby order dated 27.01.2000. Ultimately, the application ofthe petitioner liir voluntary retirement was accepted and an order to release payment ofall llie employees who had sought voluntary retirement was ordered. According to the petitioner, he was entitled to payment as detailed in para 5.8 ol' llie petition, which is as'under: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 9. 10. Exgretia payment as against service of 27 years pay of40/2 months One month notice pay Gratuity G.P.F. Transportation Allowance Leave Encashment (EL + HPL) DifFerence ofLeave Encashment Arrears of salary July 1999 onwards till date Arrears ofCentral D.A. Outstanding reimbursement (Medical) Approx. Grand Total Less Amount previous received. Net Amount (Rs. Five Lakhs Fifty Nine Thousand Ei; Nine Only. Rs. 424764.00 Rs. 10488.00 Rs. 150000.00 Rs. 75000.00 Rs. 18000.00 Rs. 20000.00 Rs. 15000.00 Rs. 100000.00 Rs. 10000.00 Rs. 15000.00 Rs. 838252.00 Rs. 278413.00 Rs. 559849.00 ;ht Hundred and )''iiily 3. The petitioner was entitled to free medical treatment as per the circular dalcd 20.08.1992 (Annexure P/5), but from his final payment, a sum to the extfiit ofRs. 27,8627- was deducted. The petitioner was also entitled to Rs. SOOII/- on account of reimbursement for special disease. Further, the petitioner v\ iis also entitled to transportation allowance also vide circular dated I X/19 y^ tssf November, 1993 (Annexure P/6). The petitioner is a chronic patient iit' Hypertension neurological and has undergone micro vain diffused operaliiin for which the petitioner claims a sum ofRs. 4 lacs. Shri Tamaskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would sut)iiiit that the petitioner has been denied his legal due payments which comes to llie tune ofRs. 5,59,849/- with interest. Shri Koshy, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and 2. |icr contra, would submit that the respondent No. 1 company, sometimes in llie year 1988, was struggling with the financial crunch, it was difficult for llie company to pay the wages and salary in respect of the workers ancl llie employees at all levels at different project units ofthe company, spreatl iill over the country. The company became financially weak on accounl iif drastic fall in revenue eamings for loss of order from the Steel Authorily iil' India Limited, the principal purchaser ofthe products ofrespondent No. 1.1n view of the above stated situation, the company had to frame scheme liir voluntary retirement (hereinafter referred to as 'the VRS') and the same \\iis approved by the Board, on grant of financial assistance (term loan) to 1 lie tune ofRs. 318.36 crores from the State Bank oflndia and other financiiil institutions against the guarantee executed by the Govemment oflndia aiid on hypothecation of the plants and machinery of the respondent No. 1 company, by way ofspecial package for revival ofthe company. The VRS scheme, which was introduced earlier in November 1988 was ag.iin revised with following post retrial benefits i.e. encashment ofhalfpay ]t;il^'e to CDA pattem employees and additional leave in the case of workcrs, reimbursement of travelling and transportation expenses of personal el lci Is given for the recorded home town of the employees. The above slulrd 'sss:'^ 4 facilities/benefits were withdrawn on serious objection of the Print;i|iti.l Director, Commercial Audit, Ranchi with retrospective effect by order tliilfd 28.08.2000. The petitioner was paid retrial benefit i.e. ex-gratia providnit fund, gratuity, eamed leave encashment, outstanding salary quantified to tlie tune ofRs. 2,96,709.50 initiaUy. 7. Shri Koshy would further submitthatthe basic pay ofthe petitioner was Ks. 7600/- in the scale of Rs. 5500-9000/-. The revised pay with effect Irdin 1.1.99 was frozen. The petitioner, thereafter, pursuant to the observatiiin made by this Court in the order dated 01.12.2006, has been paid a sum ol Ks. 7,14,150.53, (DocumentNo. 1) which reads as under: "Details ofpayments made to Shri L.N.Gupta P.No. 60391 Ex SO/HSCL Bhilai Date ofV.R. 09.06.2000 Reference Item l.ExGratia 2. Spl. Exgratia Total Rs. 3. Gratuity 4. Encashment 5.CPF 6.CPF 7.CPF 8. Back Log Salary 9. Back Log Salary Total Amount in Rs. 2,96,709.50 74,170.50 9,272.00 3,80,152.00 Ref. WE/2411 dt. 22.7.2000 1,39,080.00 Ref. W/2410 dt. 22.7.2000 38,633.00 Ref. WE/2409 dt. 22.7.2000 1,02,522.00 H.O. Cheque No. 427773 dt. 26.9.03 (SenttoBank'on 13.10.03) 357.75 'Cheque No. 419388 dt. 12.2.03 (Sent to Bank on 26.02.03) 4,104.78 Cheque No. 808762 dt. 31.03.04 (Sent to Home on 14.05.04) 37,271.00 Cheque No. 412602 dt. 3.07.02 (SenttoBankon 5.09.02) 12,030.00 ChequeNo. 881447 dt. 5.10.04 (SenttoBankon 18.10.04) 7,14,150.53 Sd/- Illegible B.D.Singh Manager(Fin) Hscl/Bhilai" <;-e [, '_. ->-- 8. The petitioner was not paid interest as the reasons for the delay was beyoiid control of the respondents. The amount calculated by the petitioner vvns approximate and not on actuals. In the affidavit dated 2 March 2007, 1'iled by the petitioner, according to him, his claim has still not been satisfied. 9. I have heard leamed counsel for the parties, pemsed the pleadings ciiid documents appended thereto. It is apparent that the claims raised by Ihe petitioner is inflated and not on the basis of actuals, as against the claiin of gratuity, it was determined as 1,39,080/-, the petitioner, aflter rounding ol'. li.is claimed Rs. 1,50,000/- . Against all the heads, the petitioner has rounded iit and has not proceeded on actuals. Thus, the figures and calculations madc I'y the respondent company seems to be correct. 10. Thus, it is held that the retrial benefits as due to the petitioner stuiids satisfied. The petitioner was paid a sum ofRs. 2,96,709.50 in 1995 and aller the petitioner was directed to be reinstated, it was incumbent on the petitioiier to pay back the amount and claim the said amount after compulsory retirement was granted to the petitioner. Be that as it may, now nolliing remains for adjudication by this Court. 11. With regard to interest, since the respondent No. 1 was in fmancial difticiilly resulting into taking decision ofvoluntarily retiring employees, the petitioiicr may not be entitled to higher rate of interest. However, in view of the liiut that the payment ofthe amount was delayed for a long period, the petitioiicr is entitled to interest at the rate of6% per annum from the date it became diie till the actual payment was made. ."•.•—"•^TK^SS^ r: ''~^\ ' ^ li ', :^ / '.;^-^^ -syi' ^o 12. The Supreme Court, in the matter of A.K.Bindal and another v. Union of India and o'thers , observed as under: "22. ... .Therefore, it appears to be the consistent view ofthis Court lliat the economic viability or the iinancial capacity of the employer is iin important factor which cannot be ignored while fixing the wnge structure, otherwise the unit itself may not be able to fimction and miiy have to close down which will inevitably have disastrous consequenres for the employees themselves. The material on record clearly shows lliat both FCI and HFC had been suffering heavy losses for the last miiiiy years and the Govemment had been giving a considerable amounl liir meeting the expenses of the organisations. In such a situation, llie employees cannot legitimately claim that their pay scale shoiild necessarily be revised and enhanced even though the organisatioiis in which they are working are making continuous losses and are deeply in the red." 13. The dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of A.K.Bintlal (supra) was subsequently approved in the matter of Officers and Supervisars ofI.D.P.L. v. Chairman & MD, I.D.P.L. andothers2. 14. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the case, il is evident that the claim ofthe petitioner with regard to retrial benefits has hffn satisfied. In view oflong delay, the petitioner is entitled to interest at the rnle of6% per annum from the date it became due till the date ofactual paymuiil. 15. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this petition is allowed to the above extent. Costs easy. --——- - -. __ Sd/- satish K. Agmhotri