High Court · 2009

Heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned sr. counsel assisted by Mr. J. I. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.K. Sarma, lea rned GA for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Ms. S. Sarma, learned counsel for th e respondent Nos. 3 to 5.

2. The writ petitioners, whose detailed particulars have been provided in A nnexure-2 to the writ petition, were the employees of the Assam Polyester Co-ope rative Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ’APOL’), Tulsibari Mill, Ran gia 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 t he petitioners were working in the Tulsibari Mill, APOL, the respondents vide no tice dated 25-12-2003 suspended the production of the Mill and thus made the pet itioners jobless. According to the petitioners, while issuing the notice of clos ure of production of the Mill, no notice was given to the petitioners terminatin g their services. The petitioners, being regular employees of the APOL had appro ached the authority for absorbing them in their job and to release their monthly salary, but the authority concerned did not respond. According to the petitione rs in the months of May and June, 2006 only 260 employees were re-employed and s ubsequently 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 in convenience and hardship in managing their livelihood. As the petitioners did no t receive any response from the authority in respect of their prayer for re-empl oyment they have come up with this writ petition seeking direction for re-employ ment and release of salary for the entire period.

3. The notices being issued, the respondent No. 2, by filing an affidavit-i n-opposition, stated that neither the Society i.e. APOL nor its employees were g overned by the Government Rules. However, the respondent No. 2 in his affidavit at paragraph 10 stated that there was a scheme under the National Co-operative D evelopment Council (NCDC) towards rehabilitation and that the said package used to provide an amount of one crore as Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS). It is al so stated, in the affidavit aforesaid, that once the said amount of rehabilitati on package is received by the Society, then the Society can implement the VRS sc heme. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 also contested the petitioners’ claim by filin g an affidavit-in-opposition. In their affidavit-in-opposition the respondents a verred 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 initia lly 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 pro duction 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 h ave filed an additional affidavit annexing the revised policy on VRS for the emp loyees of State Level Public Enterprises of Assam. The said scheme was notified under notification No. PE/4/2006/28 dated 15-2-2006. Mr. Choudhury, learned sr. counsel appearing for the petitioners while d 4. rawing the attention of this court to Annexure-3 i.e letter issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Co-operation department to the Private Se cretary to the Leader of the Opposition dated 28-3-2007 and the statements in th e writ petition submitted that as the State Government has the share of 99.14 pe rcent. In view of the above, State being a welfare State it has the responsibili ty 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 affidav it-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 2 submitted that as there is a sche me for granting benefit under the VRS scheme the Society may pursue the matter f or obtaining appropriate fund to implement the scheme for giving relief to the p etitioners. 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 Mil l 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 fun d is made available to the Society.

5. Having heard the learned counsels for both the parties and considering t he pleadings it is found that, admittedly, the petitioners rendered service in t he APOL for 15 to 16 years and they became jobless due to closure 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 per formance record leaving the petitioners jobless. According to the respondents, d ue to financial problem, as the Mill is not in a position to function upto its f ull capacity it is not possible to re-employ the petitioners. Mr. Choudhury, lea rned 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 serv ice 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 f acts and circumstances of the case, I find 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 rehabilitat ion package as per Rules and procedures. It is expected that the State responden ts as well as the APOL will take initiative to pursue the matter with the approp riate authority for obtaining the rehabilitation package towards VRS scheme. Con sidering the hardship and the inconvenience faced by the petitioners it is expec ted that the respondents will complete the entire exercise within a period of si x months from today.