2012 (3) TMI 690 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to CAT's judgment extending financial benefits to employees under different categories.
2. Financial condition and wage revision policy of the petitioner.
3. Entitlement of employees who opted for VRS before the cut-off date.
4. Validity of the cut-off date for wage revision.
5. Application of judicial precedents and principles to the case.

Summary:

1. Challenge to CAT's Judgment:
The petitioner, Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited, challenged the Central Administrative Tribunal's (CAT) judgment dated 04.08.2010, which extended financial benefits to employees categorized into Category I and Category II. The CAT had granted actual financial benefits to 30 applicants in Category II and notional fixation benefits to 10 applicants in Category I, necessitating recomputation of their severance packages.

2. Financial Condition and Wage Revision Policy:
The petitioner highlighted its financial losses from 1992 to 2005, leading to the implementation of a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) as part of a revival package. The Government of India approved wage revision effective from 01.04.2003, to be implemented from 01.04.2006, with arrears for 2005-06 payable in 2006-07, contingent on achieving specific financial targets.

3. Entitlement of Employees Who Opted for VRS Before the Cut-off Date:
Employees who opted for VRS before 01.04.2003 were not initially entitled to wage revision benefits. However, they later claimed entitlement, leading to legal proceedings. The petitioners argued that these employees had no right to wage revision benefits as they had severed their relationship before the cut-off date.

4. Validity of the Cut-off Date for Wage Revision:
The petitioner argued that the cut-off date of 31.03.2003 was reasonable and necessary to avoid reverse discrimination. The CAT, however, found that the cut-off date was arbitrary and discriminatory, directing that notional benefits be extended to employees who retired before 01.04.2003.

5. Application of Judicial Precedents and Principles:
The court considered various precedents, including judgments in *Orissa Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. vs. Khageswar Sundaray & Ors.*, *Sudhir Kumar Consul vs. Allahabad Bank*, and *A.K. Bindal & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.*, which emphasized that VRS terms are decisive and that wage revision benefits cannot be claimed post-retirement. However, the court found that the CAT had correctly applied its mind and that the petitioner's circulars had promised wage revision benefits, justifying the CAT's directions.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the CAT's judgment. The rule was discharged, and no costs were imposed. The interim orders were extended for eight weeks to allow the petitioner to seek further legal recourse.