ANANTA PATRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RELIEF claimed in all the writ applications being similar, on the request of the learned Counsel appearing parties, all the cases were taken together for hearing. The petitioners in all the writ applications were employees of erstwhile Bhaskar Textile Mills Limited working in different capacities. In these writ applications they challenge the order dated 02.01.2002 issued by the Department of Public Enterprises, Government of Orissa fixing the cut -off date 31.5.1998 for the purpose of computation of duties under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme instead of 31.5.2001 as a result of which, the petitioners have been deprived of salaries/wages for the period from June, 1998 to May, 2001. They also pray for deposit of Provident Fund shares from 1991 to 2001.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that erstwhile Bhaskar Textile Mills Limited was established in the year 1965 and at a subsequent stage the production capacity was increased. 2500 (Two thousand five hundred) workers were engaged for producing Cotton and Synthetic yarns. The old Employer after extracting huge profits from industrial establishment left the Mill by declaring a lockout with effect from 2.10.1982 and closure with effect from 10.1.1983. After closure of the industrial establishment, for a period of three years nothing happened, and the petitioners and several other employees demanded nationalization of She Mill in order to save the employees from starvation. The Mill was finally taken over by the State Government vide its ordinance No. 5 of 1985 dated 13.8.1985 and the said ordinance subsequently became an Act i.e. 'Bhaskar Textile Mills (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1986' and under the said Act the industrial establishment was transferred and vested in the hands of the Orissa State Textile Corporation Limited. Thereafter, the Corporation reopened the Mill on 2.10.1985 and the petitioners continued as employees of the Corporation. Since the industrial establishment was covered under the D.F.I.D., the management invited options from the employees for voluntary retirement under the V.R.S. All the petitioners applied for voluntary retirement in the year 2001 and all the petitioners were also allowed retirement from service with effect from 31.5.2001. The further case of the petitioners is that under the scheme, all the dues were to be paid within thirty days, but the dues were not properly calculated and were paid in instalments and the same were received under protest. Their specific claim is that they have been paid their wages up to May, 1998 but wages from June, 1998 to May, 2001 when the voluntary retirement was accepted had not been paid and to avoid such payment, an order was issued fixing the cut -off date to 31.5.1998. It is also the grievance of the petitioners that the Provident Fund shares from 1991 to 2001 with interest including pensionary contributions and arrear interest on late deposits having not been paid to the Provident Fund authorities, they are not able to get their full and final payment and pensionary benefits. The petitioners, therefore, pray for payment of the following dues :

(3.) CONSIDERING the respective cases of both the parties, the only question that arises for determination is as to whether the scheme under which voluntary retirement was sought for having been floated in the year 2001 whether a cut -off date with effect from 31st May, 1998 could be fixed. In this regard, the sole contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that they were supplied with slips from June, 1998 to 31st May, 2001 by the industrial establishment indicating their presence whereas the stand taken in the counter affidavit is that with effect from 1st June, 1998 the industrial establishment was not functioning and, therefore, the petitioners could not have been in employment. On the basis of principle of 'No pay for no work' it was decided to fix the cut -off date as 31st May, 1998. A similar question came up for consideration before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 11462 of 2003 filed by the one Murali Dharei. The said writ application was disposed of on 12.5.2005 directing the opposite parties to fix the cut -off date from the date when his option for retirement under VRS was accepted and not from the date when the concerned establishment ceased its production and consequently disburse the entire financial dues legally payable to him. In the said case the petitioner was an employee of erstwhile Bhaskar Textile Mill Limited and stands on the same footing as that of the present petitioners. The grievance of the petitioner therein was also that his option under the scheme was accepted with effect from 31st May, 2001 and, therefore, the State Government in the Department of Public Enterprises could not have fixed a cut -off date earlier to that. In the said writ application the very same order dated 2.1.2002 of the State Government fixing the cut -off date 31st May, 1998 had also been challenged. This Court though has not discussed the principle of 'No work no pay' as advanced in the counter affidavit, held that the petitioner therein is entitled to all benefits till the date his option under the scheme was accepted i.e. 31st May, 2001. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also cited several decisions relating to principle of 'No work no pay'. However, it is not disputed that the industrial establishment had stopped production with effect from 1st June, 1998 and there was no scope of employment with effect from the said date. One fails to understand as to how the employees were given slips indicating their presence in the establishment with effect from 1st June, 1998 when there was no work for the employees in the industrial establishment. The petitioners also nowhere in the writ application stated that they have worked after 1st June, 1998 but at the time of hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that they worked for some days and their engagement were not on regular basis. There is no material before this Court to show as to whether after 1st June, 1998 the petitioners were asked to work in the industrial establishment or not. In absence of such material, it is difficult to form an opinion as to whether the petitioners would be entitled to wages for the days they worked as claimed by them. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioners should be paid their dues in terms of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme or Voluntary Separation Schemes as the case may be. So far as the dispute with regard to the period from June, 1998 to 31st May, 2001 is concerned, I am of view that if the petitioners have worked during the said period, either on all days or for certain days, they cannot be deprived of their dues for the days they have worked.