THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY W.P.No.8088 of 2001 ORDER: Heard. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner Hindustan Zinc Limited, against the order passed by I.T.I.D.(C) No.3 of 2000 dated 12.02.2001 contending that Hindustan Zinc Limited has mining and smelting units and offices at various locations in the country and at Hyderabad there is no manufacturing unit but only a liaison/sales office. The four employees by name N.R.Raghuvender, V.Gopi, N.Jana and Smt.S.Ramulamma were working at Hyderabad office. But as per the terms, they have to work at any part of the country. The office at Hyderabad was wound up in normal course. There was no work for the above four employees and they ought to have been retrenched on account of the closure of Hyderabad Office, but in order to provide some work and to avoid hardship to them, they were transferred to Visakhapatnam. They were not entitled as a matter of right for transfer and company could have been retrenched them only on humanitarian grounds. They were given all benefits, which the transferred employee is entitled to. As far as the employees working at Visakhapatnam are concerned, they are entitled for housing, free water supply, subsidized electricity, school facilities for children apart from medical facilities. The duties at Vizag are more onerous is incorrect. In 1997, four employees who were surplus at Hyderabad, were transferred to Visakhapatnam and they were given two increments based on the compromise entered into between Management and the union. It was specifically stated that it was a onetime measure and no one can claim additional increments as of right. The workmen, raised dispute contending that they should also be given additional increments and facilities, which were given to the employees at Visakhapatnam, compared to those who were given at Hyderabad, the matter was referred to industrial tribunal, which held that in view of the benefits conferred in 1987, the other persons similarly placed also should be given same benefits. It is further contended that two of the four employees N.R.Raghuvender, S.Ramulamma had left the organisation taking VRS and the question of granting them any benefits does not arise. A reading of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition reveals that there are absolutely no merits in the writ petition and the persons similarly placed to the present respondents were given benefits by the petitioner themselves and further more, even as per the writ petition, two of the employees have taken VRS and went away. Now, learned counsel for the petitioner reports that out of the four employees, one more also retired and another was promoted. The amounts payable to the claimants are only paltry amounts that were paid to other similarly placed persons, and two of them have taken VRS, one has already regularly retired and one was promoted, in the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that whatever amounts are payable to the respondents in pursuance of the orders of the I.T.I.D. have to be paid to them. There are no merits in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J Date: 26.11.2010 Rns