HINDUSTAN ZINC LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these writ petitions similar point is involved, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8115/2010 and 8007/2012 are taken.

(2.) The present writ petitions have been filed to challenge the impugned reference orders dated 26.7.2010 and 4.4.2012 by which the competent authority has forwarded references for adjudication to the Labour Court.

(3.) The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the Company -Hindustan Zinc Limited a Government Company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1957 with Government of India was holding 76% of share capital. In the month of April, 2002, dis -investment of the petitioner -Company is undertaken by the Government of India and 26% of its holding in the petitioner -Company was sold. That due to un -economic and un -viable earning operations at Maton Mines, the petitioner -Company decided to cut the cost by introducing a special scheme for voluntary retirement of its employees. Out of 202 workmen working in the mines, 179 workmen opted for voluntary retirement under the voluntary retirement scheme and they were granted all benefits accordingly, but 23 workmen did not accept the said scheme and they were retrenched by invoking the provisions contained in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. An industrial dispute came to be raised and during the course of conciliation proceedings, an understanding was reached between employer and Shanti Lal Jain workman -respondent no.4 in the present writ petition. On asking of the Union, the petitioner -Company agreed to extend the scheme of voluntary scheme to respondent no. 4 and others, who had been retrenched. The respondent no. 4 and 20 other retrenched employees moved an application for voluntary retirement for receiving benefits under the voluntary retirement scheme, which was subsequently allowed. One of the terms of the settlement was that all claims stood settled and agreed upon and thereafter no dispute would be pending between the employer and the retrenched workmen. By the said settlement the workman could not claim employment in any other mine as well. Two employees namely, Radhey Shyam Jat and Rajesh Ghawri did not accept the voluntary retirement under the conciliation proceedings. A failure report was sent in this matter and ultimately, reference was made to the appropriate Government for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal, where out of court understanding was arrived at and the two workmen were given fresh appointment in another establishment.