KUMAR BAIS Vs. HINDUSTAN COPPER LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner in the instant writ petition challenges the action of the respondent as per order P.5 dated 17-10-2002 directing him to be treated as trespasser with effect from 31st Oct., 2002and threatening him eviction under the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 1971. In case petitioner fails to vacate the accommodation. Petitioner is occupying it by virtue of facility granted in Voluntary Retirement Scheme and the notice P.1 dated 28th June, 2001 relating to voluntary retirement by which petitioner was given right to occupy the accommodation for a period of two years from the date of voluntary retirement or up to the date of notional superannuation whichever is earlier.

(2.) Petitioner was an employee of Hindustan Copper Ltd. he was employed on 1-2-1983 and sought voluntary retirement as per the scheme. The respondent Management considering the circumstances allowed the retention of quarter for a period of two years to tide over the difficulties of the optees because of retirement. Notice P.1 was issued on 28-6-2001 in which petitioner and other similarly place employees were given right to retain the quarter subject to four conditions mentioned in the notice P.1. One of condition was the standard rent fixed has to be paid and secondly the amount of Rs. 1.0 Lac for the officers and Rs. 50,000.00 for the workmen had to be deposited with the company as interest free security deposit for retention of quarters. As per third condition the retention is only for two years or the date of notional superannuation of the concerned employee whichever is earlier. Lastly an employee has to pay electricity charges; willingness was also required to be submitted to retain the quarter, which was submitted by the petitioner. Petitioner being workman deposited interest free security of Rs. 50,000.00 and his date of notional superannuation has not fallen, hence, petitioner has right to retain the accommodation for 2 years till 30-7-2003.

(3.) Petitioner submits that petitioner was General Secretary of All India Trade Union Congress (hereinafter referred to as 'AITUC') for two years before his retirement. Since Nov., 2001, he is Vice President of AITUC. Hindustan Copper Ltd. did not revise the pay-scale of its employees as per tripartite agreement and had also not disbursed the wages of employees for about two months. That resulted in an agitation by labour unions, ITUC and AITUC jointly on 30-9-2002. Dharna was organised on 30-9-2002 opposite to the administrative office of Hindustan Copper Ltd. The Cabinet Minister of the State Government of M.P. was also present in the meeting. The meeting was covered by the Media and was widely published. The Management of the respondent, Hindustan Copper Ltd. took ill of the agitation and issued the notice dated 5-10-2002 to the petitioner to show cause why the allotment of his residential quarter be not cancelled owing to the petitioner's participation in the Dharna and speech in meeting. Petitioner submitted reply P.4 asserting that he had neither used any insulting language against the Management nor incited the workers to commit riot or disturb the peaceful atmosphere of the workplace. It was also explained why the rent and electricity bill were not deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner expressed his willingness to deposit the same forthwith and also tendered the arrears of rent and electricity dues. However, the Management refused to accept the same. The Management as per order P.5 dated 17-10-2002 cancelled the allotment and ordered the petitioner to vacate the quarter by 31-10-2002. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court on the ground that the conduct of the petitioner to participate in the agitation made for the benefit of workers, could not be made the basis of show cause and ultimate order of cancellation of allotment. The apprehension of the Management that the peace and tranquility of the workplace may be disturbed because of the speech of the petitioner is baseless. Nothing untoward incident has happened at the workplace or in the township. The allotment has been cancelled on impermissible and illegal ground. The action is insupportable by statutory rule. The petitioner's daughter is a student of Central Academy School and her final examination is likely to be held in April, 2003. Petitioner shall suffer irreparably if he is thrown out of the quarter as per letter P.5.