9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to the scheme for revival of the company before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), implementation of the scheme leading to retirement or retrenchment of surplus employees, legality of notice given to employees under the Voluntary Separation Scheme, transfer of employees to other units while still working at the original unit. Analysis: The writ petitions were filed by individuals employed in a company and some unions representing the workmen, challenging the scheme for the company's revival before the BIFR. The company had invoked the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 in 1992 and certain revival steps were taken with Central Government approval. The main challenge was against the mode adopted for proceeding with the scheme before the BIFR. A previous writ petition was dismissed by the Court, citing the decision in Balco Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, emphasizing the careful consideration and absence of arbitrariness in the decision-making process regarding the closure of certain divisions within the company. The scheme under scrutiny identified 1,272 surplus employees, with provisions for their retirement or retrenchment. Out of these, 1,026 employees opted for Voluntary Retirement, while notice was given to the remaining 154 employees found surplus due to division closures at the company's Sindri unit. The employees not opting for Voluntary Retirement were given notice under the Voluntary Separation Scheme or faced retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioners contested the legality of such notices, especially highlighting the continued work of transferred employees at the original unit. The counter-affidavits provided details of the process followed for identifying surplus staff, involving committees at different levels evaluating manpower requirements based on job nature, experience, capability, and expertise. The Court found no evidence of mala fides in the exercise and noted that no such case was presented. It was emphasized that the decisions taken were part of a policy to address the company's circumstances. The Court referenced previous judgments to support the non-interference in policy decisions by the Court under normal circumstances. The petitioners were advised to address grievances under the Industrial Disputes Act or before the BIFR if legally entitled. The Court concluded that no interference was warranted and dismissed the writ petitions.
|
