IDPL WORKERS UNION Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IDPL Worders' Union (Regd.) petitioner has filed the present Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to revise the wages of the workers of IDPL with effect from 1.10.1992 and grant the arrears of salary eta:.

(2.) In short, the case set up by the petitioner is that vide Annexure P-I dated 10.10.1990, wages revision of the workers of respondent No. 2 was implemented with effect from 1.10.1988. However, respondent No. 2 became sick and the matter was referred to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as BIFR). Vide Annexure P-2, the Rehabiliation Bench was announced and the workers undertook to sacrifice and deferred the revision of pay scales for 4 years, i.e. from 1992 to 1996. The package which was announced on 10.2.1994 could not mature as it was found un-viable vide Annexure P-4 dated 23.1.1996. On 26.7.1995, vide Annexure P-4 the Department of Public Enterprises issued a new DA formula which to become applicable with effect from 1992. Vide Annexure P-8 dated 26.12.1995, respondent No. 2 put toward its proposal for wages revision before the petitioner as well as the other employees of the Union. On 28.1.2000, respondent No. 2 submitted recommendations for wages revision to respondent No. I vide letter annexure P-11. The case of the petitioner in short is that since respondent No. 2 recommended the wage revision of the workers of the I DPL, the same has not been disposed of by respondent No. 1. As a result of that, the petitioner and its members of the Union are suffering. Notice of the Writ petition was given to the respondents. Written statement was filed on behalf respondents No. 2 only. Though appearance was also made on behalf of respondent No. I through its Counsel Mr. M.S. Guglani. Controversy in this cue is very short which can be disposed of by giving suitable directions to respondents 1 and 2. In Annexure P-11 and in para No. 2 of the letter dated 15.5.2000, it has been stated by respondent No. 2 that some recommendations were submitted to the Government vide letter dated 28.1.2000 in which the Management of respondent No. 1 had included wage revision proposal on the packages on the basis of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Textile Corporation Units case . The blame is being put by respondent No. 2 upon respondent No. 1 by saying that no further action can be taken as the matter is in the courtyard of respondent No. 1. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that he has received instructions from the Government of India and as per his instructions, no proposal of wage revision has been sent to the Government by respondent No. 2 as a result of which no action can be taken in this regard.

(3.) In this view of the matter, this petition is disposed of by directing respondent No. 2 to send the specific proposal for wage revision if, not already sent to the Government of India, within one month from the date of receipt of me copy of this order and the Government of India on receipt of such proposal, shall dispose of the matter within 4 months by passing a speaking order. Copy the order be given dasti to the learned Counsel for both the parties. NO order is to costs.