9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 603X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... much as the issue before the BIFR as well as the Appellate Authority was the revival of the Cement Corporation of India Limited the Sick Industrial Company with multiple units, the question of revival of Adilabad Unit on stand alone basis does not arises. However, it may not be construed that if the State of Telangana or any other party interested to rehabilitate or revive the Adilabad Unit, the same would have to be strictly done in accordance with the scheme as approved by the BIFR which aspect has already been dealt with in the preceding paragraphs. This Court finds no merits in the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed making it clear that the respondent-authorities shall implement the scheme formulated with respect to the workers in letter and sprit expeditiously. - WRIT PETITION No.5487 OF 2007 - - - Dated:- 7-2-2017 - SRI CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J. For The Petitioner: Sri K.R. Prabhakar For The Respondent : 1,2,5 and 6:Standing Counsel for Central Government, No.3:G.P for Industries and Commerce., No.4:Ms. V. Uma Devi. ORDER: The petitioner is an employees union of the employees who were working with the 4th respondent (CCI) at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The action of the respondents 1,2,4,5 and 6 in omitting Adilabad unit of CCI from revival is illegal and unconstitutional as it is vitiated by arbitrariness, lack of bona fides and tainted with collateral considerations and is utterly lacking in transparency apart from not being fair and just and is openly violative of Article 14 as being discriminatory action. The said action of respondents 1,2, and 4 i.e., in mechanically and irrationally accepting the draft rehabilitation scheme as revised at the instance of 4th respondent, without application of mind and without reasons, is utterly contrary to the doctrine of fairness, application of mind and suffers from discriminatory treatment and as such is utterly invalid in law apart from being unconstitutional. Respondents 5 and 6 did not even consider the Andhra Pradesh Governments support, tax waiver and other concessions for revival of Adilabad unit and totally ignored the same and as such the impugned orders are liable to be set aside as they are not only violative of principles of natural justice, suffers from total non-application of mind but also based on irrelevant material while ignoring the relevant material and based o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons to the tune of ₹ 30.00 crores for revival of the Adilabad unit and the then Central Minister himself designed to continue the Adilabad unit. This Court while admitting the writ petition granted the status quo order and thereafter taking note of the above factors modified the status quo order while allowing the Central Government to proceed with the proceedings under the I.D Act restrained giving effect to the same. In violation of the orders of this Court, the respondents have proceeded with further. The draft rehabilitation scheme submitted by the operating agency on 5.12.2015 while noting in paras 1.9 to 1.17 of the scheme about the earlier rehabilitation plans of Adilabad unit erroneously ignoring the advantageous of reviving the Adilabad unit circulated the draft scheme with a proposal to close the Adilabad unit while providing for revival of Bokjan unit. The same has been done on account of the pressure exerted by the Union Minister hailing from North East at relevant point of time. In approving the draft rehabilitation scheme, the BIFR miserably failed to advert to and deal with the various aspects of the advantageous in rehabilitating the Adilabad unit as recommend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rit petition is based on the Delhi High court writ petition as pleaded by the petitioners themselves in para 44 of the writ affidavit, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The plea of the petitioners itself before this Court based on the orders of the writ petition pending before the Delhi High court and in fact the orders passed by this Court are only based on the initial interim orders passed by the Delhi High Court and on account of the dismissal of the writ petition by the Delhi High Court, the present W.P to be dismissed. He further submits that pursuant to the modification of the order dated 27.2.2008 Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India by proceedings dated 14.07.2008 granted permission under Section 25(o) of I.D. Act for closure of 7 units of the CCI viz., 1) Mandhar, 2) Kurkunta, 3) Akaltara,. 4) Cherki Dadri, 5) Adilabad, 6) Nayagam and 7) Delhi/Bhatinda Cement Grinding Unit. The order of the G.O.I was upheld in Civil W.P.No.9108 of 2008 by the Punjab and Haryana High Court vide its order dated 23.10.2008 and by the Indoor Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in W.P.No.6582 of 2008 vide its order dated 1.12.2008. It is only in relation to A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the present writ petition was also argued before the Delhi High Court. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court after elaborately referring to the scheme of the SICA in para 17 had held: It was because of the aforesaid circumstances that a conscious decision was taken by the Government of India to close down these unviable units. The purpose, therefore, sought to be achieved, is two-fold. Not only to get rid of the unviable units which are adding to mounting losses, at the same time utilise the funds generated from the sale of those units to make running units viable. With this process at least three units, which are operational, have good chance to become profitable and because of this reason, the company will revive and shall not be forced to wind up. thus, even though it may appear to be harsh to seven units, the move is the only possible solution to save at least other three units as the other alternative was to close all units and wind up the company, which was a tentative opinion formed by the BIFR on an earlier occasion. If that happens, in so far as the petitioners herein, viz., unions of three units are concerned, they will face closure in either case. Notwithsta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Aspects relating to the Bokjan had specifically dealt in paras 7.2.3 and 10.3. It is not necessary for this Court once again to repeat what was in detail considered by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court with respect to the statutory scheme and scope of Sections 15 to 19 of the Act. Further, there is no dispute with respect to the specific contention that the permission granted by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment under Section 25(o) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the failure of the challenge to the same before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indoor Bench. It may also be noted that there is no challenge to the permission granted by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment under Section 25(o) of the Act by order dated 25/27.3.2008. This Court is conscious of the scope of the interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with respect to the scheme formulated and approved by the BIFR, which was held to be statutory in nature. A reference may be made to para 13 of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in a case reported in V.S.R Murthy and others vs. Engineer In-C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ereinbefore, is a special statute. It was enacted by the Parliament only with a view to meet the contingencies contemplated therein. The validity or otherwise of the reference made by NTC to BIFR is not in question. The writ petitioners did not question the validity of the statutory schemes. No material has been brought before us to show even the workmen were in any way aggrieved thereby. Had they been so, they could have preferred an appeal before the BIFR. Even there does not exist any material to show that at any point of time they had approached the High Court in judicial review. The workmen were parties in the proceedings before BIFR. Presumably BIFR made the said schemes after hearing of parties concerned including the workmen. On 22.12.2016, when the matter came up under the caption for pronouncement of judgment, learned Advocate General for the State of Telangana appeared before this Court and made a request to defer pronouncement on the ground that the State of Telangana was not made as a party respondent to the Writ Petition. This Court sensitised the learned Advocate General that though in the cause title, the State of Andhra Pradesh was arrayed as a respondent, in vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of India Limited, Adilabad District in strict legal sense. Probably, what the Principal Secretary means is Adilabad unit of Cement Corporation of India Limited. Inasmuch as the issue before the BIFR as well as the Appellate Authority was the revival of the Cement Corporation of India Limited the Sick Industrial Company with multiple units, the question of revival of Adilabad Unit on stand alone basis does not arises. However, it may not be construed that if the State of Telangana or any other party interested to rehabilitate or revive the Adilabad Unit, the same would have to be strictly done in accordance with the scheme as approved by the BIFR which aspect has already been dealt with in the preceding paragraphs. In this context, it may also be noted that the letter dated 10.01.2017 addressed to Principal Secretary to Government, Commissioner for Industrial Promotion Mines, Industries Commerce Department, Government of Telangana is placed on record by the learned Standing Counsel for the CCI. The learned counsel for the petitioner objects for the said document to be brought on record. The objection is not sustainable as this letter, in fact, has no bearing on the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
