Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 366 (GAU)

Dilipch Bhuyan & Ors. v. State of Assam & Ors.

2009-05-28

C.R.SARMA

body2009
C. R. Sarma, J.:- Heard Mr. M. K. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. J. R. Barman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. K. Sharma, learned GA for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Ms. S. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 to 5. 2. The writ petitioners, whose detailed particulars have been provided in Annexure-2 to the writ petition, were the employees of the Assam Polyester Co-operative Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'APOL'), Tulsibari Mill, Rangia in the district of Kamrup and they rendered service in different capaci­ties for about 15 to 16 years. In due course their services were regularized. While the petitioners were working in the Tulsibari Mill, APOL, the respondents vide notice dated 25.12.2003 suspended the production of the Mill and thus made the petitioners jobless. According to the petitioners, while issuing the notice of closer of production of the Mill, no notice was given to the petitioners terminat­ing their services. The petitioners, being regular employees of the APOL had approached the authorities for absorbing them in their job and to release their monthly salary, but the author­ity concerned did not respond. According to the petitioners in the months of May and June, 2006 only 260 employees were re-employed and subsequently the strength was raised to 404 without considering the petitioners' case. According to the petitioners some of the em­ployees were re-employed on the basis of pick and choose policy depriving the petition­ers and that due to such irregularity on the part of the authorities, the petitioners were put to much inconvenience and hardship in managing their livelihood. As the petitioners did not receive any response from the authority in respect of their prayer for re-em­ployment they have come up with this writ petition seeking direction for re-employment and release of salary for the entire period. 3. The notices being issued, the respond­ent No. 2, by filing an affidavit-in-opposition, stated that neither the Society i.e. APOL nor its employees were governed by the Govern­ment Rules. However, the respondent No. 2 in his affidavit at paragraph 10 stated that there was a scheme under the National Co­operative Development Council (NCDC) towards rehabilitation and that the said pack­age used to provide an amount of one crore as Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS). However, the respondent No. 2 in his affidavit at paragraph 10 stated that there was a scheme under the National Co­operative Development Council (NCDC) towards rehabilitation and that the said pack­age used to provide an amount of one crore as Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS). It is also stated, in the affidavit aforesaid, that once the said amount of rehabilitation package is received by the Society, then the Society can implement the VRS scheme. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 also corrected the petitioners' claim by filing an affidavit-in-opposition. In their affidavit-in-opposition the respondents averred that due to acute financial hardship the production of the Mill had to be closed, but subsequently the functioning of the Mill was started to some extent. According to the answering respondents, the Mill was made functional by initially re-employing 260 em­ployees and subsequently the re-employment was raised to 404. It was further stated that as the machines of the Society's weaving and production Unit became inoperative it was not economically viable to re-employ all the em­ployees of the Society. Denying the allega­tion of adopting pick and choose policy, the respondent aforesaid in their affidavit-in-op­position, stated that the employees having good employment record were re-employed. The petitioners have filed an additional affi­davit annexing the revised policy on VRS for the employees of the State Level Public En­terprises of Assam. The said scheme was notified under notification No. PE/4/2006/28 dated 15.2.2006. 4. Mr. Chowdhury, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioners while drawing the attention of this court to Annexure (sic) letter issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Co-operation department to the Private Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition dated 28.3.2007 and the statements in the writ petition submitted that as the State Government has the share of 99.14 percent. In view of the above, State being a Welfare State it has the responsibility to look into the matter so that the petitioners and their family members are not pushed to uncertainty. Mr. B. K. Sharma, learned GA referring to the affidavit-in-op­position filed by the respondent No. 2 sub­mitted that as there is a scheme for granting benefit under the VRS scheme the Society may pursue the matter for obtaining appro­priate fund to implement the scheme for giving relief to the petitioners. Ms. S. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the respond­ent Nos. Mr. B. K. Sharma, learned GA referring to the affidavit-in-op­position filed by the respondent No. 2 sub­mitted that as there is a scheme for granting benefit under the VRS scheme the Society may pursue the matter for obtaining appro­priate fund to implement the scheme for giving relief to the petitioners. Ms. S. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the respond­ent Nos. 3 to 5 has submitted that due to fi­nancial constraint and non-functioning of the Mill to its full capacity it is not possible to re-employ the petitioners and that the Society has no objection in granting the benefit of VRS scheme, once the fund is made available to the Society. 5. Having heard the learned counsels for both the parties and considering the plead­ings it is found that, admittedly, the petition­ers rendered service in the APOL for 15 to 16 years and they became jobless due to closer of production of the Mill. Therefore, subsequently, the production of the Mill was revived to some extent and some of the em­ployees were re-employed on the basis of their performance record leaving the petition­ers jobless. According to the respondents, credit financial problem, as the Mill is not in a position to function upto it full capacity it is not possible to re-employ the petitioners. Mr. Choudhury, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that as it may not be possible on the part of APOL to re-employ the petitioners in view of the service rendered by them and the hardship faced by them the respondents may consider the peti­tioners' case for granting the benefit of VRS scheme. Considering the facts and circum­stances of the case, (sic) sufficient force in the contention of the learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners. 6. In view of the above discussion, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider the petition­ers' case for granting the benefit of VRS scheme upon receipt of fund from the NCDC towards rehabilitation package as per Rules and procedures. It is expected that the State respondents as well as the APOL will take initiative to pursue the matter with the appro­priate authority for obtained the rehabilitation package towards VRS scheme. Considering the hardship and the inconvenience faced by the petitioners it is expected that the respond­ents will complete the entire exercise within a period of six months from today.