SHYAM LAL SHARMA Vs. THE HINDUSTAN COPPER LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 25/10/2018 while reserving the cases the Court passed the following order:-

(2.) All the cases have been heard. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that while petitioners in SBCWP No. 2548/2010 have approached this Court in individual capacity the other two writ petitions have been filed on behalf of the Union as well as individuals.

(3.) The case of the petitioners in brief is that the respondents a government of India Enterprises has a unit at Khetrinagar, Jhunjhunu known as Khetri Copper Complex. It has introduced from time to time the voluntary retirement schemes laying down certain conditions and terms therein. Schemes were introduced in the year 1993, 1999, 2001 and 2002. Petitioners are those persons who have taken voluntary retirement under the aforesaid schemes. The schemes specifically mention conditions of opting laying down a particular time frame. In the circumstances, the employees under an atmosphere of uncertainty and of being retrenched opted for the scheme. At the time of the floating of the said schemes, the pay revision was pending, which was brought in force from 1997 after the petitioners had been voluntary retired. The revision of the pay scale was done on the basis of a settlement w.e.f. 1/11/1997. The said 5th All India Wage Settlement arrived at between management of HCL mentions of the 4th All India Wage Settlement signed on 20/12/1995 which was made operative from 1/11/1992 to 31/10/1997. The petitioners submit further that the circular was issued on 20/2/1995 to the effect that those employees who have retired or would be retiring under the Companies Voluntary Retirement Scheme would be entitled to wage, revision pay benefits as and when the same is finalized. The respondent-HCL after floating of the aforesaid schemes, on 19/4/2006 settlement was arrived at between workmen of HCL and union with regard to the revision of pay scales of all regular workmen borne on the rolls of HCL on 1/11/1997. the petitioners therefore demanded entitlement for revision of their pay scales as they were all regular workmen oh the rolls of HCL as on 1/11/1997. However, as the petitioners were not given the arrears under the pay settlement effective from 1/11/1997, the petitioners demanded to release the same which was rejected by the respondent conveying a letter to the Hindustan Copper Limited, Khetri Jhujhunu i.e. the petitioner-Union informing vide letter dtd. 12/2/2008 that in pursuance of the Supreme Court order and other Court rulings, employees who had opted for VRS scheme were not entitled to any arrears arising out of subsequent pay revision.