STATE OF KERALA Vs. SATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Chalakudy Refractories Limited is a State Government company. The company was not functioning from 1993 due to financial difficulties, especially due to want of working capital. After detailed evaluation of the various aspects, Government decided to lay off the workers of the company with effect from October, 1994. A meeting was convened at the instance of the trade unions and management of the company and a memorandum of settlement dated 16-10-1995 was arrived at. It was decided all the workers of the company would retire voluntarily from the services of the company, and the company would give compensation as per the Voluntary Retirement Scheme.

(2.) The Managing Director of the company then through the Secretary of the Public Sector Restructuring and Internal Audit Board, a Government establishment, submitted a Voluntary Retirement Scheme for the workers of the company and a detailed statement of financial commitment for the proposed Voluntary Retirement Scheme and other dues as per the Memorandum of Settlement. Voluntary Retirement Scheme was intended to apply only in the case of permanent employees of the company. Petitioners who were admittedly employed as casual employees on daily wages took up the stand that they are also covered by the Scheme. Consequently, they made repeated representations before the authorities to get the benefit under the Scheme. Since no action was taken, respondents petitioners approached this Court and filed O. P. No. 10443 of 1997 which was disposed of by this Court directing the State Government to consider the representations filed by the respondents and pass appropriate orders. Accordingly, Government issued Ext. P6 dated 17-9-1997 stating that the benefit of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme would not be extended to respondents, since they were not regular employees of the company. However it was ordered, on humanitarian ground, to release Rs.5000/- as exgratia. Respondents, aggrieved by the denial of the benefit under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme have preferred O. P. No. 17706 of 1997.

(3.) Respondents contended before the learned single Judge that eventhough they entered service on daily wages of Rs.20/- they continued in service uninterruptedly and therefore they should be deemed to be in continuous service under S.25(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Further, it was contended that as per S.25F of the I.D. Act, a worker who is in continuous service for not less than one year, is entitled to notice pay with retrenchment benefit. Further it was also pointed out that eight employees of the company, who had not completed 4 years of service, were given the benefit of the Scheme, while respondents, who had put in more than six years of service, were not given the said benefit.