HIRALAL AND ORS. Vs. LIDCOM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) RULE . Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.

(3.) SHRI Mandlik, learned Senior Counsel for petitioners argued that petitioners were in service of respondent No. 3 -Godavari Garments Ltd., a Subsidiary of respondent No. 2 -Marathwada Development Corporation. As the said Corporation started running under losses it offered a Voluntary Retirement Scheme to its employees and petitioners accepted retirement in that scheme. Shri Mandlik, learned Senior Counsel further argued that after receipt of the amount of ex -gratia/compensation under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, petitioners gave a golden hand shake to their employer Godavari Garments Ltd. in the year 2005. Subsequently, as contended by Shri Mandlik, learned Senior Counsel, in the year 2006 about 95 posts were available with respondent No. 1 Sant Rohidas Corporation -a Corporation owned and managed by the State. Names of petitioners were recommended by their erstwhile employer -Godavari Garments Ltd. and accordingly, petitioners came to be employed with the respondent No. 1 Sant Rohidas Corporation. This appointment, as contended by learned Senior Counsel, was a fresh appointment. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 Sant Rohidas Corporation, on 19.01.2010, issued the impugned letter directing petitioners to refund the amount of ex -gratia/compensation received under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme to their erstwhile employer Godavari Garments Ltd. This letter, according to Shri Mandlik, is also extending a threat that, petitioners will be removed from service if they fail to refund the amount of ex -gratia/compensation to their erstwhile employer i.e. Godavari Garments Ltd. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the present employer of petitioners i.e. Sant Rohidas Corporation has no power and authority to issue such direction, particularly when petitioners were offered fresh employment without any benefits of continuity in service.