MATON MINES MAZDOOR SANGH Vs. HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above captioned 7 writ appeals challenge a singular order dated 2.6.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing 17 writ petitions filed by Hindustan Zinc Limited. Not all affecting workmen are aggrieved by the impugned order, and this is evident from the fact that only 7 writ appeals have been filed concerning 7 writ petitions which were allowed.

(2.) Hindustan Zinc Limited had filed writ petitions challenging reference orders dated 26.7.2010 and 4.4.2012 to the effect whether the action of the Management of Hindustan Zinc Limited in terminating the services of (workmen named in the reference) and thereafter not reinstating/reemploying is legal and justified. The reference order dated 4.4.2012 was with reference to the Union espousing the cause of 184 workmen. The said reference orders read as under:

(3.) Relevant facts correctly noted by the learned Single Judge are that Hindustan Zinc Limited, a Government Company within the meaning of section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 was dis-invested by the Government retaining 26% share therein. The remainder were acquired by private individuals. Post disinvestment due to uneconomic and un-viable earning operations at Maton Mines of the Company the Management decided to stop operations in the Maton Mines and close the same. 202 workmen were working in the Mines. The Company floated a special scheme for voluntary retirement of its employees. Of the 202 employees, 179 opted to take benefit under the voluntary retirement scheme and their offers to be voluntarily retired being accepted, benefit as per the scheme was given to them. These 179 workmen took the money given to them. 23 workmen did not opt for voluntarily being retired under the scheme. They were retrenched by the Management. Compensation for retrenchment was paid. These 23 workmen raised an industrial dispute and during conciliation proceedings 21 agreed to accept being voluntarily retired. Thus, of the 23 retrenched workmen, 21 accepted the benefit under the voluntary retirement scheme. In this manner, of the 202 workmen, 200 stood voluntarily retired from service. Two employees remained named Radhey Shyam Jat and Rajesh Ghawri. The two agreed to be given fresh appointment in another establishment of the Company. Thus, qua those two also no dispute remained.