Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 195 (JHR)

MMTC Limited v. Dhanraj Mahto

2016-01-25

P.P.BHATT, VIRENDER SINGH

body2016
JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. 1. Challenge herein is the judgment/order dated 18.06.2015 passed in W.P.(S) No. 5314 of 2008 whereby the claim of pay revision as well as seniority and promotion of respondents at par with MMTC employee is allowed. 2. The brief background of the case is that Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation (in short MMTC) is a public limited company incorporated on 26.09.1963. M/s Mica Trading Corporation Ltd. (in short MITCO) was incorporated on 18.06.1973 as 100% subsidiary company of MMTC Ltd. initially trading in Mica but later on it setup on industrial undertaking for manufacture of mica powder, mica paper, mica capacitors etc. at Abhrak Nagar now forms part of the State of Jharkhand which commenced commercial production in September 1983, Vide order no. BS/A-5(9)/74 dated 09.09.1974 rules making power was delegated to the MITCO subject to prior approval of MMTC Ltd. The MMTC Ltd. vide Order No. 7/20/84/IR dated 07.08.1984 wrote to the Chairman of MITCO that the pay scales of staff of MMTC Ltd. and MITCO are identical and therefore the revised scales of pay will be applicable to the staff of MITCO as well as MITCO employees were governed by their own service conditions and wage structure for which the employee of MITCO enter into settlement with management of MITCO vide settlement dated 22.08.1984 and 05.10.1991. 3. MITCO was primarily exporting processed MICA to erstwhile USSR and due to passage of time rupee-ruble ratio changed which resulted into the closing down of Soviet Union Market and also due to de-canalization of export of processed mica, underutilization of manufacturing capacity at Abhrak Nagar for lack of orders, surplus labour force, looking of large sums in incomplete projects etc the MITCO was referred to the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) under the provision of Sick Industrial Companies Act (SICA) vide Case No. 502/93 on 21.12.1992. MITCO was declared sick in the year 1993 and the BIFR examined various possibilities of its revival on stand-alone but could not succeed and at last merger/amalgamation was considered to be the best solution for the long term viability of the company. Thereafter the State Bank of India was appointed as an Operating Agency who after taking into account of several factors submitted a draft rehabilitation-cum-amalgamation/merger scheme (DRAM). 4. Thereafter the State Bank of India was appointed as an Operating Agency who after taking into account of several factors submitted a draft rehabilitation-cum-amalgamation/merger scheme (DRAM). 4. In the DRAM it was provided; All the employee who are not surplus to requirement and are being retained in service as per Annexure II shall become the employee of MMTC from the effective date of merger/amalgamation without interrupting their services in any manner and the terms and conditions of service applicable to such employee on the effective date will not in any way be less favourable to them than those applicable immediately before the appointed date. 5. The DRAM was, thereafter, circulated to the concerned parties’ u/s 19(1) and (2) of SICA, 1985 and also the scheme was published in the local daily inviting objections and suggestions. 6. The Group of Ministers while approving the scheme had pointed out : “After discussion, the GOM approved in principle the proposal for merger of MITCO with MMTC, subject to the rationalization of the work force of MITCO so as to bring it down to the minimum required label of offering an attractive package of VRS. The GOM further decided that on merger MITCO employee will not get the MMTC pay scales.” 7. The scheme of merger again came up before the bench of BIFR and after certain modification in the Scheme the same was approved u/s 18(4) and 19(3) of the Sick Industrial Companies Act 1985 on 08.04.1996. Finally MMTC in its meeting held on 02.05.1996 approved the DRAM and an order was drawn on 10.06.1996 declaring that the MITCO stand merged with MMTC w.e.f 01.04.1994. BIFR passed final order on 21.04.1997 for amalgamation of MITCO with MMTC w.e.f 01.04.1994 by granting approval to DRAM. 8. Finally MMTC in its meeting held on 02.05.1996 approved the DRAM and an order was drawn on 10.06.1996 declaring that the MITCO stand merged with MMTC w.e.f 01.04.1994. BIFR passed final order on 21.04.1997 for amalgamation of MITCO with MMTC w.e.f 01.04.1994 by granting approval to DRAM. 8. In the scheme of merger it was provided that : “All the permanent employees of the transferor company being retained after retirement under proposed VRS and those employees of the offices/units found surplus and not opting for VRS shall be retrenched on payment of retrenchment compensation who are in the employment of the transferor company on the effective date in terms of this scheme shall as from such date become the employees of the transferee company on the basis that their services do not stand interrupted by vesting of the undertaking of the Transferor Company in the Transferee Company under this scheme and the terms and conditions of service applicable to such employees on the Effective Date is in no way less favourable to them than those applicable to them immediately before the Transfer Date. The Transferee Company, however, shall also have the right to exercise an option if warranted to transfer such number of workers to any other unit of Transferee Company as may be deemed necessary.” 9. In the year 2008 the respondent no. 2 and 3 vide representation dated 02.09.2008 and 26.09.2008 respectively requested for grant of pay revision of 1992, 1997 and 2007 and also claiming seniority from the effective date of merger and promotion and alongwith other peculiar benefits with interest as granted to the employees of MMTC. 10. The Respondents, thereafter, filed writ being W.P.S No. 5314 of 2008 for grant of pay revision and the pay which are applicable to the officers and staff of the appellant which included the benefit of the pay revision which was implemented w.e.f 1992, 1997 and 2007 respectively. During the pendency of the writ petition, the appellant vide order dated 10.03.2009 rejected the respondent’s representation on the ground that as per the sanctioned scheme of BIFR the respondents were treated as employees of MICA Division of MMTC which was a separate and independent profit center of the appellant and was to be governed by the service condition and pay scale as applicable in the erstwhile MITCO which were prevailing at the time of merger of MITCO with the appellant. The said order was subsequently challenged by way of I.A being No. 1495 of 2009 dt. 15.5.2009. Vide officer order dated 04.05.2009 the appellant herein enhanced the pay scale of its executive in accordance with the recommendation of the 2nd Pay Committee for CPSE chaired by Justice Jagannath Rao w.e.f 01.07.2007. However the benefit of the said pay revision was not extended to the Executives of MICA Division since as per the sanctioned scheme of BIFR they were entitled to emolument and/or pay scales which existed on the date of merger. The said order was again challenged by way of I.A being No. 793 of 2009. During the pendency of the writ petition a letter/order bearing no. 20/24/2000-FT (M&O) dated 12.02.2008 passed by the Director, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Dept. of Commerce, Govt. of India whereby it was communicated to the appellant that the issue of grant of wage parity between the employee of MMTC and MICA division was considered by the Govt. of India and a decision was taken that (i) an attractive VRS to be offered to MICA Division and (ii) Status quo be maintained in respect of employees who do not opt for VRS. The said letter was also challenged by the Respondents by way of I.A. being No. 1760 of 2009. 11. The writ was finally heard alongwith all the I.As and allowed on 18.06.2015 by holding that the respondents were duly entitled to benefits of pay revision made in the year 1992, 1997 and 2007 as has been done in the case of MMTC employees and further it was directed that rest of the service conditions related to service, seniority etc of the MICA division employees of the appellant were concerned the same was directed to be granted within six months. 12. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, Mr. P.P. Rao, raised preliminary objection to the filing of writ by stating that all the respondents except Respondent No.2 are workmen and they have an efficacious statutory remedy under I.D Act and as such the writ is not maintainable. He further submitted that though this question was not raised earlier, the same being the pure question of law, can be raised even at the final hearing of the appeal. In support of his contention, Mr. Rao relied on the following judgments:- i. Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation Vs. He further submitted that though this question was not raised earlier, the same being the pure question of law, can be raised even at the final hearing of the appeal. In support of his contention, Mr. Rao relied on the following judgments:- i. Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation Vs. Jabar Singh reported in (2007) 2 SCC 112 ii. Seth Badri Prasad Vs. Seth Nagarmal reported in AIR 1959 SC 559 iii. Dr. Shela Burney Vs. Syed Ali Moiza reported in (2011) 6 SCC 529 iv. Tarini Kamal Pandit Vs. Prafulla Kumar Chatterjee reported in (1979) 3 SCC 280 . 13. On the other hand the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, submitted that the plea of alternative remedy cannot be raised after the admission of the case. He further submitted that even though alternative remedy is available, the jurisdiction under Article 226 is maintainable on infringement of fundamental right and principle of natural justice. He relied upon the following judgments i. AIR 2002 SC 2171 reported in A.V.G.P. Chettiar Vs. T. Palanisamy Gounder ii. AIR 1982 SC 1473 reported in Peoples Union For Democratic Rights Vs. Union of India iii. (1998) 8 SCC 1 reported in Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai 14. Admittedly, the respondent no. 2 is amenable under the writ jurisdiction and the objection is raised only with respect to the rest of the respondents. It is a settled position of law that the alternative remedy cannot completely oust the jurisdiction of the writ court when there is a challenge to the infringement of fundamental rights. Another point that is also to be looked into is that dismissal of the case at this stage, so far the other respondent are concerned, will cause multiplicity of the suit and also time consuming. On this score alone the preliminary objection raised by the appellant is overruled. 15. Mr. P.P. Rao assailed the impugned order on the ground that BIFR scheme employees are in a separate cadre known as MICA division governed by the terms and conditions of the scheme. Even after the merger the employees were not functionally integrated in the common cadre with MMTC employees. The decision of the Group of Ministers, while approving the proposed merger, is clear that the approval was subject to following three conditions; i. That these two sets of employees would remain separate, ii. Even after the merger the employees were not functionally integrated in the common cadre with MMTC employees. The decision of the Group of Ministers, while approving the proposed merger, is clear that the approval was subject to following three conditions; i. That these two sets of employees would remain separate, ii. The Mica division would be an independent profit centre; and iii. That the employees of MITCO would not be entitled to parity with the pay scale of MMTC employees and they would be offered VRS. He further stated that the respondents have no legal right to claim the benefit of revision of pay scales given to the regular employees of MMTC. He relied upon the following judgments : i. State of Sikkim Vs. Anup Tshering Bhutia reported in (2014) 2 SCALE 373 ii. Hindustan Lever Employees Union Vs. Hindustan Lever Ltd. reported in (1995) Supp. 1 SCC 499 iii. State of Punjab Vs. Joginder Singh reported in AIR 1963 SC 913 iv. S.L. Sachdev Vs. UOI reported in (1980) 4 SCC 562 v. Ram Lal Wadhwa Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1972 SC 1982 vi. V.T. Khanjode Vs. RBI reported in (1982) 2 SCC 7 vii. New Bank of India Employees Union and Anr. Vs. UOI reported in (1996) 8 SCC 407 16. He further submitted that on the date of merger employee of MITCO and MMTC had different scales of pay and their wages were different and as such the letter dated 07.08.1984 was irrelevant and the learned Single Judge could not have relied upon the said letter. He further submitted that once the reference has been made and thereafter scheme has been sanctioned any previous order, communication and direction had become non est in the eye of law and could not have been relied upon. The right to equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India is among equals i.e. members of a class who are similarly placed and are not attracted in the present case because the employee of MMTC are the employee of a establishment which is not a sick company on the one hand whereas the employees of Mica Division are the employee of a sick company which is governed by the scheme on the other hand. It is further submitted that principal of equal pay for equal work is not applicable in the present case as the MMTC employees are required to deal with multi products therefore job profile is different from those of MICA division employee. 17. Mr. Rao further stated that the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 is a self contained code and it is open for the employees of sick company to approach before BIFR for review or modify of the scheme and as such the correct remedy before the respondents were to move before the BIFR and not before this court. The scheme itself envisages the monitoring by the BIFR by stipulating a condition that MMTC shall submit half yearly reports of the progress made. To substantiate his submission Mr. Rao has relied upon the following judgments:- i. Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. Pharmaceutical Products of India Ltd. reported in AIR 2008 SC 2805 ii. NGEF Ltd. Chandra Developers (P) Ltd. reported in (2005) 8 SCC 219 iii. Raheja Universal Ltd. Vs. NRC Ltd. reported in (2012) 4 SCC 148 iv. Ghyansham Sarda Vs. Shiv Shankar Trading Co. reported in (2015) 1 SCC 298 18. Mr. Rao further submitted that in-spite of merger the MICA division is running at continuous loss and as such due to the financial capacity of the employer, the employee of MICA division was not given pay revision and as such Articles 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India will not be attracted in their cases. He further relied on the following judgments: i. A.K Bindal Vs. Union of India reported in (2003) 5 SCC 163 ii. Officers and Supervisors of IDPL Vs. Chairman and MD of IDPL and Ors. reported in (2003) 6 SCC 490 19. Mr. Rao further stated that Union of India and the appellant volunteered to revive the erstwhile MITCO only on the condition that its employee would not claim any pay parity and thus it was impermissible for the learned Single Judge to foist additional financial burden upon the appellant which it did not volunteer at the time of giving consent for amalgamation of the erstwhile MITCO with the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the hopes of revival were frustrated as MITCO is running at continuous losses and an application was also filed before the Ministry of Labour seeking permission to close down the Mica Division but the application was rejected by order dated 11.07.2003. 20. It is further stated that as Mica Division was running in continuous losses the pay scale of the employee of Mica Division were not revised. It is further stated the looking to the several representations of existing employees of Mica Division, highlighting their financial conditions, the Management vide office order dated 16.03.2015 granted special benefits per months to the officers, staff and workers of Mica Division and besides this lump sum amount was also agreed to be paid on retirement over and above their present retiral benefits. 21. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, appearing for the respondents submitted that from the date of merger respondents became the employee of MMTC Ltd. and are legally entitled to the pay revision of 1992, 1997 and 2007 which have been given to the MMTC employees. It is further stated that due to the denial of pay revision the respondents are getting much less pay then the employee of MMTC and even a daily wager, who have been regularized in MMTC, are getting higher pay than the respondents. It is further submitted that the verdict of BIFR is a kind of protection and not restriction and the same has been wrongly interpreted and instead of protecting erstwhile MITCO officers including the respondents, the appellants restricted and freezed pay scale forever and as such the same is in violation of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. It is further stated that after the merger the respondents have been transferred in various divisions of MMTC but they have not been given the pay scale, seniority and promotion at par with the MMTC employees. It is further stated that there is a suppression of fact that MMTC has been seriously affected by the Indian Economy and as per the audit report of 2010-11 shows that the MMTC has reserve fund to the tune of Rs.1279.74 crore for the year 2010-11. It is further stated that there is a suppression of fact that MMTC has been seriously affected by the Indian Economy and as per the audit report of 2010-11 shows that the MMTC has reserve fund to the tune of Rs.1279.74 crore for the year 2010-11. It is further stated that as per BIFR, DRAM clause 4(E)(iii), MMTC agreed to meet the expenses of any other contingent or other liability not known or not disclosed at the time of sanction of scheme hence denial of revised scale is illegal. 22. By way of a counter affidavit dated 06.11.2015 the respondents brought on record a letter no. 18(4)/28/B-I/BIFR/Mon/1996 dated 15.09.2003 issued by BIFR wherein it was stated that a Miscellaneous application dated 18.06.2003 filed on behalf of MMTC Ltd has been considered by the Hon'ble Bench and dismissed by observing that since the MITCO has been discharged from the purview of the provision of SICA-1985 and the case has been closed in 1997 and the Board has become functous officio. 23. It is further stated on behalf of the respondents that an office Memorandum vide no. 2(10)/2013-DPE(WC)-GL-XII dated 30.04.2013 issued by the Ministry of Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises, Department of Public Enterprises in which it is stated that CPSE is treated as a single-entity and consequently, pay/wage revision has to be based on the performance/prof-itability of the company as a whole and not separately for each unit. It means that different units within the same CPSE cannot have different pay/wage structures. Mr. Sinha relied upon the following judgments:- i. Purshottam Lal v. Union of India, reported in (1973) 1 SCC 651 ii. P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India, reported in (1984) 2 SCC 141 ii. K.T. Veerappa v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2006) 9 SCC 406 iv. State of Kerala v. B. Renjith Kumar, reported in (2008) 12 SCC 219 v. People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, reported in (1982) 3 SCC 235 . 24. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the materials placed on record and also gone through the judgments replied upon by the parties. State of Kerala v. B. Renjith Kumar, reported in (2008) 12 SCC 219 v. People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, reported in (1982) 3 SCC 235 . 24. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the materials placed on record and also gone through the judgments replied upon by the parties. Admittedly, the MITCO was established as a subsidiary company of MMTC and thereafter, when it was running in loss, a BIFR proceeding was started and finally a draft scheme for merger was framed wherein it was stipulated that the terms and conditions of service of employees of MITCO who were retained in service shall not be less favourable to them than those applicable immediately before the appointing date. Group of Ministers while approving the scheme laid a condition that on merger MITCO employee will not get the MMTC pay scales. Finally MMTC in its meeting dated 02.05.1996 approved the DRAM and an order was drawn on 10.06.1996 declaring that the MITCO stand merged with MMTC w.e.f 01.04.1994 and now the MITCO is known as the Mica division of MMTC. It is also admitted that after the merger the MMTC employees were given pay revision but the employees of Mica division were denied the same on the ground that they were governed by the scheme of the rehabilitation and as such they cannot be treated at par with the MMTC employees. 25. Neither of the parties have challenged the term of the scheme thus the provisions of the scheme is undisputed. However, they are interpreting the scheme in their own terms. Mr. P.P Rao has stated that since by the scheme the MITCO employees were not integrated into the common cadre they are not entitled to claim the pay parity with the MMTC employee. He further stated that as there was no provision in the scheme regarding subsequent pay revision they cannot claim it. On the other hand Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha stated that by the scheme the MITCO was merged with the MMTC and as such the respondents shall not be treated as unequal and any discrimination will be violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. On the other hand Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha stated that by the scheme the MITCO was merged with the MMTC and as such the respondents shall not be treated as unequal and any discrimination will be violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. From the facts it is clear that the employees of the then MITCO were retained in service on the terms and conditions of the scheme and in the scheme itself the only safeguard was given that their service condition shall not be less favourable to them than those which was applicable to them at the time of merger. Nowhere in the scheme was it provided that from the date of merger the employees of MITCO shall be given pay benefits at par of the MMTC employees. Had there be any intention of the framer of the scheme about the parity of pay of both the employees then it would certainly come in the scheme itself. The group of minister at the time of approving the scheme had laid down a condition that the MITCO employee shall not get the pay scale of MMTC employee. From the order of BIFR annexed with annexure-4 of the Supplementary Affidavit, it appears that at the time of hearing the MMTC had also contended before the BIFR that the MITCO employee should not agitate for pay scale of MMTC. 26. The contention of group of ministers and MMTC before BIFR was also very well within the knowledge of the respondents but they did not raised their claim at that time and now after more than a decade they are raising it in violation of right of equality which is not tenable. The respondents have supported their case also on the ground that after the merger they were posted at different sections of MMTC and were doing the same work as that of the MMTC employee. In P.K. Ramachandra Iyer (Supra.) the Hon’ble Apex Court held that denial of equal pay for equal work on no classification or irrational classification is the violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In P.K. Ramachandra Iyer (Supra.) the Hon’ble Apex Court held that denial of equal pay for equal work on no classification or irrational classification is the violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In the present case on one hand the respondents are the employees governed by the terms of the scheme and were absorbed in MMTC by creating a separate cadre known as Mica Division whereas on the other hand the regular employees of the MMTC are governed by their own service condition and as such the classification made between them for grant of pay revision is reasonable and the same cannot be interfered with. Mere the fact that the respondents are doing the same work does not place them equal to that of MMTC employees and as such they are not entitle to claim pay at par with the MMTC employees. The respondents have strongly relied upon the letter dated 07.08.1984 whereby it was written that the pay scales of staff of MMTC Ltd. and MITCO are identical and therefore the revised scales of pay will be applicable to the staff in MITCO. We are of the opinion that as after the said letter the MITCO became sick and for the long term viability of the company the same was merged with the MMTC and their employees were also absorbed as per the scheme of the merger and as such the letter which was written under different situation will not help to them. Even otherwise, amalgamation of company does not mean amalgamation of employees. The respondents are employees of the sick company and they are claiming parity with the employees of profit making company. It is the MITCO, which is seeking revival and not the MMTC. For these reasons also, the claim of parity of respondents does not appear to be reasonable and we do not subscribe the view of the learned Writ Court in this regard as there appears to be no violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 27. Now we are looking for grant of any other relief that may be awarded to the respondents. Mr. Rao has submitted that having taken into consideration the various representation of the employees of Mica Division, the Management by order dated 16.03.2015 has granted special benefit to them and as such they are not entitled to any other relief. 27. Now we are looking for grant of any other relief that may be awarded to the respondents. Mr. Rao has submitted that having taken into consideration the various representation of the employees of Mica Division, the Management by order dated 16.03.2015 has granted special benefit to them and as such they are not entitled to any other relief. He further submitted that in spite of merger, the Mica Division is still running in huge loss and in support of his contention he has shown a chart given in Annexure-19 of the supplementary affidavit. On the other hand, Mr. Sinha has strongly objected the contention of Mr. Rao and stated that the Mica division is now a profit making division and the same will be evident from the Audit Report annexed with the supplementary affidavit. We are of the view that the question as to whether the MICA division is at present a profit making agencies or not is a disputed question of fact and the same cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. One thing that can also be looked into is that in the scheme itself it was provided that the terms and condition of service of MITCO employee shall not be less favourable to them than those applicable to them earlier. From the fact of the case it is evident that before the merger the pay of MITCO employees were revised by way of settlement with the management and as such after merger also as per scheme they are still entitled to the pay revision looking into the financial conditions of the Mica Division. We do agree that pay of any employee cannot be kept unchanged because it will also affect the life of a man and as such the same is in violation of fundamental right and is not acceptable. But we have no sufficient means to adjudge this issue. 28. Now the question arises before this court as to who is the best agency which will decide the issue of pay revision of the respondents. But we have no sufficient means to adjudge this issue. 28. Now the question arises before this court as to who is the best agency which will decide the issue of pay revision of the respondents. Section 18(5) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 provides as follows:- “18(5) The Board may on the recommendations of the operating agency or otherwise, review any sanctioned scheme and make such modifications as it may deem fit or may by order in writing direct any operating agency specified in the order, having regard to such guidelines as may be specified in the order, to prepare a fresh scheme providing for such measures as the operating agency may consider necessary.” 29. Further, in the judgment cited by the appellant, Ghanshyam Sarda (Supra.) the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the Act is a complete code in itself. The Act gives complete supervisory control to BIFR over the affairs of a sick industrial company from the stage of registration of reference and questions concerning status of sickness of such company are in the exclusive domain of BIFR. Any submission or assertion by anyone including the company that by certain developments the company has revived itself and/or that its net worth since the stage of registration having become positive no such scheme for revival needs to be undertaken, must be and can only be dealt with by BIFR. Any such assertion or claim has to be made before BIFR and only upon the satisfaction of BIFR that a sick company is no longer sick, that such company could be said to have ceased to be amenable to its supervisory control under the Act. The aspects of revival of such company being completely within its exclusive domain, it is BIFR alone, which can determine the issue whether such company now stands revived or not. 30. In the Rehabilitation-cum-Amalgamation/Merger Scheme also there was a provision that the MMTC shall submit half yearly report to the BIFR about the progress of the Mica Division. In the aforesaid facts, if the respondents feel themselves still aggrieved, they may approach before the BIFR for modification of the scheme. Further, we direct the BIFR to decide the claim of the respondents, if any is being raised, at the earliest. 31. In the aforesaid facts, if the respondents feel themselves still aggrieved, they may approach before the BIFR for modification of the scheme. Further, we direct the BIFR to decide the claim of the respondents, if any is being raised, at the earliest. 31. The net result is that the impugned judgment/order of the learned Single Judge dated 18.06.2015 is set aside and the appeal on hand stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Appeal disposed of.