BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION Vs. SAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ appeals arise from a common judgment dtd. 9/5/2022 of a learned single judge in W.P.(C) Nos.12838 and 12917 of 2021, and raise the question as to the maintainability of a writ petition that seeks to enforce the terms of an industrial settlement.

(2.) In the counter affidavit filed by the management (BPCL- Kochi Refinery), apart from raising a preliminary contention regarding the maintainability of a writ petition that sought the implementation of the terms of an industrial settlement, the management also gave details of the PRMB Scheme and the reasons that led them to issue the impugned Office Memorandum that confined the benefit of the Scheme to only some of the employees in the establishment. They also sought to establish that the terms of the settlement itself, and in particular clauses 42 and 50 thereof, allowed them to modify the Scheme in question based on the felt necessities of the time and in the interests of eventually ensuring that the Scheme would be viable in relation to the intended beneficiaries.

(3.) Taking note of the issue regarding maintainability urged by the management, the learned single judge who considered the writ petitions at the admission stage proceeded to pass a detailed order dtd. 15/7/2021 in the writ petitions holding that the writ petitions were indeed maintainable. The reasons for holding so are discernible from paragraphs 13 and 14 of the said order which read as follows: