SHRIKANT VISHNU GAONKER Vs. GOA MEAT COMPLEX LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above Petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking an appropriate direction directing the Respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 to pay the retirement benefits due to the Petitioner under the Voluntarily Retirement Scheme 2000 with reasonable interest and also to remove the disparity in the pay structure and revise the pay of the Petitioner and pay to the Petitioner the arrears of salary/retirement dues thereof with reasonable interest and for the other reliefs as stated in the above Petition.

(2.) IT is the case of the Petitioner that he is a retired employee of the Goa Meat Complex Limited, a Government Company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 and that the Respondent no.1 acting through Respondent no.3, by letter dated 30th September, 1996, conveyed to the Petitioner that on the recommendation of the Selection Committee, the Petitioner was offered an appointment to the post of Company Secretary-cum-Manager (Administrative) on certain terms and conditions which, inter alia, stated that (1) the post is permanent; (2) the appointment is temporary and on probation of one year and (3) other conditions of service will be governed by the relevant Rules and Orders of the Government followed by the Undertaking. It is further his contention that after he was relieved by the Addl. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Panaji, on 31st December, 1996, the Petitioner joined the duties as Company Secretary at the registered office of the Respondent no.1 on 31st December, 1996 and the letter to that effect was issued to the Petitioner dated 31st December, 1996. After successfully completing the probation period of one year, the Petitioner stood absorbed in the services of Respondent no.1 w.e.f. 31st December, 1997. A letter to that effect was addressed to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Panaji, by the Respondent no.1 acting through the Respondent no.3 on 1st December, 1998. The Assistant Commissioner vide letter dated 21st April, 1999, conveyed the sanction of the President to the permanent absorption of the Petitioner in Respondent-company. The Petitioner further states that vide letter dated 31st May, 2000, by the Respondent no.1, he was informed that the Board of Directors of the Respondent-company in its 100th meeting held on 21st March, 2000, decided to count the past services of the Petitioner under the Central Government from 24th July, 1985 to 31st December, 1996, for the purpose of service and retirement benefits subject to the condition that the Petitioner shall credit the amounts of service gratuity and leave encashment received from the Central Government to the account of the Respondent-company. The Petitioner was also called upon to deposit specific amounts received by him on account of service gratuity and leave encashment whereupon the Petitioner would be entitled for all service and retirement benefits under the Respondent no.1. The amounts claimed by the Respondents were accordingly remitted by the Petitioner by his letter dated 7th June, 2000. The Petitioner was accordingly informed thereafter that his past services from 24th July, 1985 to 31st December, 1996, are to be counted for the purpose of all service retirement benefits and, accordingly, his leave account was credited with 52 days earned leave and 80 days half pay leave which was to his credit as on 31st December, 1996. The Petitioner further states that the Respondent no.1 introduced the Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2000 under the Office Memorandum dated 29th November, 2000. As per the said Voluntary Retirement Scheme of the employees completing ten years of service as on 31st December, 2000, were eligible to apply for the Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2000, which was extended upto 15.01.2001. The Petitioner further states that he opted for the said Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2000 vide his application dated 15th January, 2001. The application of the Petitioner was accepted by the Respondent no.1 vide letter dated 21st January, 2001, as per the provisions of the said Scheme. The Petitioner was informed that he shall stand retired from the services of the company in the afternoon of 31st January, 2001, and that the retirement benefits as admissible to the Petitioner under the said Scheme would be paid to the Petition upon fulfilling the conditions as laid down therein. The Petitioner was accordingly called upon to handover the charge to the Respondent no.3. In view of the said Orders dated 24th January, 2001, the Petitioner handed over complete charge in the afternoon of 31st January, 2001 and the Respondent no. 3 was informed accordingly. Despite of receiving the said application of the Petitioner, it is further his contention that the Respondent no.3 did not settle the retirement dues to the Petitioner and, accordingly, a letter dated 16th February, 2001, was addressed to the Respondent no.3 calling upon the Respondent no.3 to settle his retirement dues at the earliest. The Petitioner states that the retirement dues of the Petitioner were to be effected immediately after handing over of the charge but, however, by letter dated 14th February, 2001, the Respondent no.3 called for an explanation from the Petitioner within eight days as under what rules and conditions the past services of the Petitioner were counted in the Respondent no.1-Company. The Petitioner replied to the said letter and, inter alia, informed that no master and servant relationship subsisted between the Petitioner and Respondent no.3 and, as such, such explanation was uncalled for. Despite of the fact that 45 days had lapsed since his retirement, the dues of the Petitioner were not settled by the Respondent no.3. Thereafter, the Respondent no.3 by letter dated 15th March, 2001, informed the Petitioner that the Petitioner is responsible for his good conduct even after retirement and could be taken to task for any misconduct. The Petitioner further states that he was not remunerated for the additional duties performed by him as Financial Advisor cum Chief Accounts Officer by the Respondent no.1 though he had requested to be relieved of such additional duties from time to time. The Petitioner further states that by letter dated 29th August, 2000, he was informed that the Board of Directors had accorded additional remuneration to the Petitioner equivalent to 10 percent of his pay w.e.f. 1st November, 1998, until further orders. The Petitioner by letter dated 10th November, 2000, informed the Respondent no.1 that such additional remuneration was not in consonance with the nature of duties and responsibilities of the post of Financial Advisor cum Chief Accountant. The Petitioner further states that there exists a remuneration/disparity in the pay scales of the Officers and the Petitioner had called upon the Respondents to remove the disparity in such pay scales but, however, the Respondent nos. 1 and 3 failed to accede to such requests. The Petitioner states that by letter dated 21st March, 2001, a cheque was sought to be remitted to the Petitioners by the Respondent no.3 after deducting an alleged offer payment on account of 10% pay for additional charge besides deductions on account of income tax. A detailed reply was sent on 2nd April, 2001, informing the Respondent no.3 that such deductions were incorrect and called upon the Respondents to settle his retirement dues. As the Respondents failed to accede to the requests of the Petitioner, a legal notice dated 8th May, 2001, was addressed to the Respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 calling upon them to settle the retirement dues of the Petitioner within 14 days. By their reply dated 16th May, 2001, the Respondent no.1, inter alia, informed the Petitioner that he had served for less than five years and, therefore, was not entitled for the service gratuity benefits and that the Board of Directors had decided to reverse the earlier decision to count the past services of the Petitioner under the Central Government. A reply to the said letter was sent by the Petitioner on 18th June, 2001. It is further the contention of the Petitioners that the said resolution dated 8th May, 2001, reversing the decision of the Voluntarily Retirement acceptance is arbitrary, unfair and bad in law as the Respondent no.1 is estopped from taking such contrary stand. It is further the contention of the Petitioner that after having accepted the application of the Petitioners under the said Scheme, the Respondents were not entitled to reverse their said decision. The Petitioner further states that in any way, if the decision was reversed, the Petitioner should have been allowed to join the services of the Respondents. Accordingly, the above Petition has been preferred by the Petitioner seeking reliefs as stated above.

(3.) THE Petitioner also filed an additional affidavit and produced some correspondence.