1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR W.P.No.1815/2002 Larsen and Toubro Cement Kamgar Sangh, Awarpur, Distt. Chandrapur and others vs. The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Industries, Energy and Labour Department, Mantralaya, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai 32 and another. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. A.C.Dharmadhikari, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. C.S.Kaptan, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. V.R. Thakur, Advocate for respondent no.2. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & A.H.JOSHI, JJ DATE : 15.10.2008 We have heard Mr. A.C. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The Revision of 1993 Scheme of Incentives as undertaken by the Government of Maharashtra by Government Resolution dated 11.8.1998 is under challenge in this Public Interest Litigation Petition and the petition has been waiting at the admission stage for the last about six years. 2` 3. The petitioners 1 and 2 are the registered Trade Unions of employees of Larsen and Toubro Limited (Awarpur Cement Works) and are duly registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, whereas the petitioner no.3 is the General Secretary of the Associated Cement Companies Limited representing Chanda Cement Works Employees Union and petitioner no.4 is the General Secretary of Chandrapur Zilla Cement Kamgar Sangh, a registered Trade Union. The respondent no.2 decided to establish a cement plant in Chandrapur District under the Package Scheme Incentives as amended by the impugned Government Resolution dated 11.8.1998 and the petitioners claim that the incentives sought to be offered to the said respondent for the establishment of the large scale cement plant would result into loss of jobs in smaller industrial units and the policy of the Government of Maharashtra is unfair, arbitrary and not in the larger public interest. The petitioners, therefore, claim that the Government Resolution dated 11.8.1998 is required to be set aside. By way of interim relief the petitioners have prayed to restrain the State Government from offering or 3` entitling any Very Large Project from reaping incentives more than 100% of the Fixed Capital Investment and for the period exceeding 11 years from the date of commencement. However, this Court has not granted any ad interim relief. 4. This petition has been filed on 29.4.2002 i.e. after about four years from the date of the impugned Government policy. During the last ten years a number of Very Large Industrial Units have taken the benefits of the impugned scheme in the backward regions of Konkan, Marathwada and Vidarbha. None of these units are before us except respondent no.2 and no explanation has been furnished as to why the petitioners thought it appropriate to challenge the Revised Scheme of 1998 after four years of its implementation. On these grounds alone the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. The respondent no.2 has filed affidavit in reply and has pointed out that it decided to set up a Very Large Cement Project in Chandrapur District because of the 4` incentives offered by the State Government as per the Revised Package Scheme of 1998. The affidavit states that the Company has invested about Rs. 695 crores by way of fixed capital investment and Rs. 400 crores have been borrowed from ICICI Bank, Rs. 193 crores have been raised by issuing foreign currency bonds in international markets and Rs. 102 crores is the contribution of the share holders (internal accruals). In addition, the Company has spent Rs. 15 crores to construct a broad gauge railway siding; Rs. 3 crores for constructing the approach road connecting the State Highway to the site of the factory and another Rs. 15 crores for laying the water pipe line. When the affidavit was filed, there were 900 employees directly employed by the respondent no.2 in its Cement Plant and approximately 2500 persons were indirectly employed gainfully for transport and other facilities. 6. An industrial unit to qualify for the revised scheme under the category “Very Large Project” (VLP), is required to make the fixed capital investment of Rs. 500 to 750 5` crores and would be entitled for tax benefits without any monetary ceiling for a period of 18 years provided that the fixed capital investment was made within a period of seven years. If the fixed capital investment is not made with a period of seven years, the period would be extended by two years but would be entitled to the sales- tax incentive up to limited ceiling of only 200% of the fixed capital investment. The respondent no.2 contends that the fixed capital investment has been made within the stipulated period and it has stoutly denied the apprehensions of the petitioners that the respondent no.2 would in any way take away the jobs in the existing smaller units. 7. We have no data before us in support of the petitioners' contentions that any jobs in the smaller industrial units were lost or any unit was either closed down or it had retrenched any employees on account of the establishment of the respondent no.2 unit. The contentions raised in the petition are merely ipse dixit and without support of any empirical data. It is well known 6` that the revised package offered by the State Government as per the impugned Government Resolution has resulted in accelerating the industrial development of the backward regions of Kokan, Marathwada and Vidarbha and in any case under section 41 of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Act, the State Government has enabling powers to offer sales tax incentives for inviting the industries to the backward regions. It is also equally well known that the Mumbai-Thane-Pune industrial belt is more than congested even before the last two decades and, therefore, the State Government found it necessary in its developmental policy that the Very Large Projects should be offered incentives if they were willing to set up their factories in the backward regions of the State. It is well settled that the State enjoys the widest latitude where measures of economic regulations are concerned. Measures for fiscal and economic regulations involve an evaluation of diverse and quite often conflicting economic criteria and adjustment and balancing of various conflicting social and economic values of interest. The said policy must be, therefore, left to the legislature's 7` wisdom to choose the yardstick for classification in the background of the policy of the State to develop the backward regions and create more employment opportunities. There is nothing placed before us pointing out that the impugned policy of the State Government has resulted in any adverse effects on the development of the backward regions or that any cement unit was required to be closed down. On the other hand, if such Very Large Projects are established, the employees working in the smaller units will have better employment market in view of their experience in the same line and we do not find any merit in the contentions of the petitioners that the impugned policy of the Government would result in any loss of jobs or the displacement of employees existing in smaller industrial units. 8. The affidavit in reply filed by the State Government makes it clear that way back from the year 1964 the Government of Maharashtra has been offering various schemes known as Package Scheme of Incentives to the industrial houses so as to establish their factories in 8` the back ward regions of the State and such schemes have been revised from time to time on the basis of the need and necessity and the representations of the industrial sector. The State Government had introduced a similar scheme in the year 1993 for the purpose of dispersal of industries in order to achieve the balanced development of all the regions of the State. The Scheme framed in the year 1964, was amended in the year 1988 and it was replaced by the Package Scheme of Incentives, 1993 which was brought into effect from 1.10.1993. By the impugned Government Resolution dated 11.8.1998, the said scheme has been further revised offering more incentives to the Very Large Projects i.e. those whose capital investment is in the range of Rs. 500 to 750 crores. The petitioners have failed to bring out any case of breach of their statutory right or any constitutional right, even of the working class. In our considered opinion, the challenge raised in this petition is devoid of merits, in addition to the fact that the petition suffers on account of gross delay and laches. We also hold that the petitioners have failed to make out a case of pro bono publico 9` petition and the petition was filed only on the basis of mere apprehensions. 9. Hence, the petition is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE patle