IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 24TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 3534 of 2006(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MRS.P.PREMKUMARI, PUTHIYANDI HOUSE, P.O.MUZHAPPILANGADU, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SRI.M.K.SUMOD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, KERALA GARMENTS LTD., KANNUR 1. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA GARMENTS LTD. KANNUR 1. 3. THE SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE SECRETARY, LABOUR DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R1 & R2 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R1 & R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LAKSHMI RANI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 3534 of 2006 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G.O.(P).73/03/od DATED 24.6.03 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.KG/SSNTP 121/03-04 DATED 7.8.03 PUBLISHED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).3994/05 DATED 16.5.05 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 13.6.05 EXT.P6- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CONT.CASE (C).NO.1128/05 DATED 22.9.05 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT EXT.P7- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER WITH REF.NO.KG/HC/243/05-06 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).3534/2006 -------------------- Dated this the 13th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel on both sides. I had originally proposed to allow the writ petition on 23.1.2009. Later, on a submission made by the learned counsel for the first respondent, the matter was again heard. I heard Mr.Muhammed Mustaque learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.E.K.Nandakumar, learned counsel for the first respondent and learned Government Pleader 2. Petitioner opted for voluntary retirement from the first respondent in terms of Ext.P1 scheme. Clause 1 of Ext.P1 provides for the following financial package. “For eligible permanent employees, an amount equal to one and a half months emoluments pay plus DA for each completed year the monthly emoluments at the time of retirement multipled in the W.P.(C).3534/2006 2 balance months of service left before normal date of retirement whichever is less. For example, an employee who has put in 24 years of service and has got only one more year or service for normal retirement would get an exgratia payment of 12 months emoluments and not 36 months emoluments whereas a person who has put in 20 years of service with 5 more years for retirement, will get a payment equal to 20 months emoluments and not 60 months (5 x 12) emoluments.” 3. Writ petition, as it was originally instituted, contained a claim that the entire amount due to the petitioner in terms of the scheme, has not been disbursed so far. There were proceedings earlier and pursuant to a direction issued in the Contempt of Court case, the Government issued Ext.P7 which dealt with the petitioner’s claim for arrears of wages for the period from 1.5.2003 to 6.4.2004, the latter being the date on which the petitioner actually left his service. It is contended that the stand taken in Ext.P7 is in consonance with Ext.R1(c), Government order dated W.P.(C).3534/2006 3 24.11.2005, by which the Government had taken a general decision to satisfy the claim for arrears of salary raised by the erstwhile employees of public sector undertakings, which, due to financial stringency, were brought under a programme called ‘Social Safety Net Programme', SSNP, which is reflected in Ext.P1. Apart from the financial package for VRS mentioned in Ext.P1, they are also entitled to wages till the date on which they had left service. This is denied by the Government as also the Company. It is this aspect which has been substantially urged by the petitioner in this writ petition. 4. The stand taken by the Government in Ext.R1(c) Order, which forms the basis of Ext.P7, was considered by me in Writ Petition No.3800/2005 and connected case. Government’s stand in Ext.R1(c) was upheld. It is seen that the judgment has been affirmed by the Bench in Writ Appeal No.2835/2007. 5. I have noticed in the aforementioned judgment, that the amount which the workman receives as a financial package under the VRS should be treated as W.P.(C).3534/2006 4 one in full and final settlement of the claim of the workmen as against the Company for proceeding on voluntary retirement. This the workman receives when he is relieved from the Company on VRS. The claim for arrears of salary was raised by similar workmen, while it was considered by the Government and this led to Ext.R1(c). I do not find any reason to take a different view in the present case which also involves an interpretation of the same Government Order and assessment of a similar claim by workmen of a public sector undertaking brought under the SSNP. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not received the entire amount due under the VRS, that is, apart from the claim for arrears of salary or leave salary for the period from 1.5.2003 to 6.4.2004. Learned counsel for the first respondent submits that this aspect will be looked into by the Company and if a representation is filed in this regard within one month from today detailing the claim, that will be dealt with and if it is found that the amounts are still due as per the VRS package and the rules of the W.P.(C).3534/2006 5 Company, same shall be disbursed within one month thereafter. If the amount already disbursed is found to be adequate in terms of the rules, a detailed reply may be given in this regard to the workman within the aforementioned period. 7. It is open to the petitioner to move the Government for enhancement of the arrears of wages which have been sanctioned under Ext.R1(c). This judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner pursuing any such remedy for enhancement of the arrears of wages before the Government. Subject to the above, writ petition is disposed of. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs