Allahabad High Court U.P. State Textile Corp. Ltd. And ... vs Presiding Officer Labour Court Jhansi ... on 15 May, 2019 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD A.F.R. Judgment reserved on 01.5.2019. Delivered on 15.5.2019. Case : WRIT C No. 9703 of 2016 Petitioner : U.P. State Textile Corp. Ltd. And Another Respondent : Presiding Officer Labour Court Jhansi And Another Counsel for Petitioner : Kartikeya Saran Counsel for Respondent : C.S.C.,Adarsh Kumar,Bansh Narain Rai Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Uttar Pradesh State Textile Corporation Ltd., (petitioner no.1), which is a Government Company under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as the "Petitioner Corporation" which is presently under liquidation and petitioner no.2, Uttar Pradesh Vastra Katai Nigam Mill is the mill of the petitioner no.1, situated at Jhansi through their Managing Director have filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs: "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned Award dated 28.08.2014 published on 14.10.2015, passed by the Respondent no.1, in Case No.02/2013. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents not to press recovery against the petitioners in pursuance of impugned Award dated 28.08,2014 published on 14.10.2015, passed by the Respondent no.1, in Case No.02/2013. (iii) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the cirumstances of the case. (iv) To award costs in favour of the petitioners." 2. Necessary facts for adjudication of the present writ petition are as follows: (i) The petitioner Corporation was declared as a sick industry with effect from 02.2.1995 and the matter is pending before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as the "BIFR") wherein Indian Finance Corporation of India (IFCI) has been appointed as operating agency by the order dated 02.2.1995 passed by the BIFR under No.PSU (S) 609/94. (ii) There is no dispute that presently no employees are working on the rolls of the petitioner corporation except the Managing Director nominated by the State Government and the holding of operational works of the petitioner Corporation are being looked after by the officials and employees of the U.P. State Spining Corporation Ltd. under the G.O. No.11.9.2000. (iii) The BIFR has directed that modified draft rehabilitation scheme as approved by the State Government be submitted before the Bank of Baroda. Presently, the said scheme is under consideration before the Bank of Baroda. The workers of the petitioner corporation being under liquidation by their own will opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme by submitting applications on different dates in the year 2001 and the workman working at the mill situated at Jhansi and who qualified under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme were paid the VRS dues and those who did not qualify were paid under the head of retrenchment compensation and gratuity in the year 2001 itself. (iv) The said amount has been received by the workers without any protest. Some of the applications and receipts of amount are on record and the same has not been disputed by the respondent workman represented through Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh (respondent no.2). The said voluntary retirement scheme is a scheme governed by certain notifications issued by the State Government. (v) According to the petitioners, in order to clear the dues which occurred after November, 1997 and till 14.3.2001, the Corporation requested the State Government to sanction the amount of Rs.15.51 crores and the request is still pending. Some employees of the petitioner corporation raised a dispute through the respondent Union to declare them as a permanent workman and to grant all consequential benefits w.e.f. 1.1.1986. (vi) The State Government referred the following issues under Section 4K of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act 1947") to the Labour Court, Jhansi under a notification dated 27.4.2012. ^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk lwph esa mfYyf[kr Jfedx.kksa dks LFkkbZ vkns'k ds rgr fnukad 01011986 ls LFkkbZ deZpkfj;ksa dks feyus okys leLr ns; fgrykHk u fn;k tkuk mfpr ,oa oS/kkfud gS\ ;fn ugha] rks oknh Jfedx.k D;k fgrykHk@mi'ke ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS ,oa fdl vU; fooj.kksa lfgr\^^ (vii) The said dispute was registered as Case No.2/2013. A written statement was filed on behalf of the respondent Union wherein they have stated that the status of the workmen was treated as permanent workman as they have worked for 240 days in a year. Similarly, written statement has also been filed on behalf of the petitioner corporation wherein it has been stated that the respondent employees who were wo