LAWS(GAU)-2019-11-156

ASSAM POLYTEX LIMITED Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

Decided On November 29, 2019
Assam Polytex Limited Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ASSAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. B.D. Das, the learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. R. Deka for the petitioner Union. Also heard Dr. B. Ahmed, the learned Standing Counsel for the Industries & Commerce Department and also Ms. M. Dutta, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 7.

(2.) This is a second round writ petition filed by the Assam Polytex Ltd. Employees Union which is represented by its General Secretary. The petitioner Union earlier approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 3354/2013, praying for a direction to the respondent authorities to grant its members the benefit of Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS). The writ petition was disposed of vide Order dated 29.04.2014.

(3.) The facts of the case in brief is that the petitioner-Union i.e., Assam Polytex Limited Employees' Union comprises of about 378 members, who are Grade-III & Grade-IV employees in the Assam Polytex Ltd. (respondent No. 5). The Union is registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1976 under registration No. TUC/CR/No. 44/87. The respondent No. 5 is a Government of Assam undertaking incorporated in the year 1982 which started its production in 1985-86. The members of the petitioner-Union were appointed by the respondent No. 5 in various capacities from 1986 onwards. Ever since their appointments, according to the petitioner-Union, they were regularly serving under the respondent No. 5. However, the production of the respondent No. 5 abruptly came to a stop in the month of March, 1993 due to various reasons thereby, rendering the members of the petitioner-Union jobless and without salaries and allowances since then. The Government of Assam in terms of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 03.01.1994 took a decision to allow a private company viz; M/s Assam Yarn Suppliers (respondent No.6) to run the respondent No. 5. However, respondent No.6 could not revive the respondent No.5 and did not even engage the members of the petitioner-union contrary to the Memorandum of Understanding.