HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3446 of 2004 Date: 12.11.2010 Between : Thirupathi Cotton Mills Mazdoor Sangh, Renigunta, Chittoor District, rep. by its General Secretary & another. …….Petitioners And National Textile Corporation, Bangalore, rep. by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director & another. ….Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3446 of 2004 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioners seek directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the inaction on the part of respondents in implementing the sanctioned rehabilitation scheme as approved by the Board for Industrial and Financial Re-construction in the meeting held on 27.03.2003, as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioners are the registered Trade Unions. The 2nd respondent-Mill was established in 1957 under a private management, but was taken over by the National Textile Corporation under the provisions of the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974. In view of the deteriorated financial condition of the 2nd respondent-Mill, the said Mill has come under the purview of Section 15(1) of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. On the application filed by the 1st respondent-Textile Corporation in Case No.534/92, the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction has approved a revival scheme. It is the case of the petitioners that as per the approved revival scheme, respondents were to take steps for modernization of the mill with new and good machinery and recruitment of efficient manpower to the tune of 460 operative staff and 38 staff. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner-Unions that inspite of such approved scheme, respondents are not taking steps for its implementation. A counter affidavit is filed by the Deputy Personnel Manager of the 2nd respondent-Mill. In the counter, it is stated that as the scheme is delayed for various reasons, which are beyond the control of the respondents i.e. the Mill, the respondents proposed to run the mill instead of keeping the machinery and manpower idle. It is further stated in the counter that after the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction has passed final orders on 21.03.2002, reviving the 2nd respondent-Unit, the Ministry of Textiles, Government of India, has released a sum of Rs.64 lakhs, and thereafter, the 2nd respondent-Mill has notified to the workers to attend to duty from 23.02.2004 onwards, for the purpose of cleaning and maintenance of the machinery. Inspite of the same, some of the members of the petitioner-Unions did not attend to duty. It is also stated that the Unit is taking steps for implementation of the scheme for providing employment to 460 people, including the petitioners. It is further stated that out of the 45 workmen, 35 have applied for modified voluntary retirement scheme and are not attending inspite of issuing notices to them. It is stated that the modified voluntary retirement scheme is applicable only when the mill is closed permanently. When the matter was listed for hearing on 11.11.2010, it was contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that there is no reason or justification for not implementing the revival scheme, which is approved by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction. However, it is to be seen from the averments made in the counter affidavit that the respondents have taken steps for implementation of the scheme and as the revival scheme could not be completed within the stipulated time fixed by the Board, they have already moved the Board, seeking further time. It is also to be noticed that after the Government of India has sanctioned an amount of Rs.64 lakhs, respondents have taken steps for employing the staff as per the approved scheme, and in fact, notices are also issued to the members of the petitioner-Unions to attend to the duties, and most of them have applied for modified voluntary retirement scheme and have not responded to the notices. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the modified voluntary retirement scheme is applicable only when the mill is closed permanently, in the absence of which, the members of the petitioner-Unions cannot seek for such retirement scheme. From the counter, it is clear that the members of the petitioner-Unions themselves are not attending to duties when they were put on notice after required funds were allotted by the Government of India. In that view of the matter, and in view of the reasons stated in the counter affidavit that for the reasons which were beyond the control of respondents, they could not implement the scheme within the stipulated time, I do not find any illegality on the part of respondents in not implementing the revival scheme within the time granted by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition for grant of relief as prayed for. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 12th November 2010 ajr