BHARAT ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SUKUMAR MUKHERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 24.7.96 passed by a learned single Judge of this court in C.R. No. 143 (W) of 1987, whereby and whereunder the writ application filed by the writ petitioners was allowed. The writ petitioners/respondents filed the aforementioned writ application claiming, inter alia, the following reliefs :

(2.) The employees concerned were working under Aluminium Corporation of India. A lock out was declared by the said company. On or about 1.5.78, the management of the said undertaking was taken over by the appellant company in terms of section 18AA of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. Parliament there after enacted The Aluminium Corporation of India Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Aluminium Undertaking) Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), whereby and whereunder the undertaking of the Aluminium Corporation of India Limited (hereinafter called as Aluminium Corporation) was nationalised. The aforementioned nationalisation was made for giving effect to the policy decision as laid down under Article 39(6) of the Constitution of India. According to the writ petitioners, they were asked by the erstwhile employer to go on leave without pay. After the management was taken over by the appellant with effect from 1.5.78, their services were taken back. In terms of the provisions of the said Act, some of the writ petitioners filed applications for payment of the amount of gratuity before the Commissioner of payments, constituted under section 14 of the said act. Some orders had been passed by the Commissioner of payments who was arrayed as respondents No. 5 in the writ application without taking into consideration the period of service rendered by the writ petitioners in the Aluminium Corporation. In the aforementioned premises, the writ petitioners filed the writ application.

(3.) The learned trial Judge upon taking into consideration the contentions made before him, inter alia, held that the writ petitioners had been discriminated against. It was further held that the petitioners were presumed to be in continuous service in terms of section 12 of the said Act, and on that ground the writ petition was allowed.