SUKHDEO MANDAL Vs. HINDUSTAN COPPER LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 4.2.2000 and dated 29.5.2000 issued under the signature of respondent Nos. 2 and 5, namely, the Director (Personnel) and the Chief Manager (Personnel), Hindustan Copper Ltd. whereby the petitioner is alleged to have been forcibly retired under the threat of terminating his services.

(2.) PETITIONERS case is that he was appointed in 1995 as Assistant Engineer (Metalurgy). After successfully completing his training he worked to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors and after promotion reached to the post of Chief Manager (CONC). On 2.6.1999 he received a confidential letter from the respondents stating that with the reduced production target he had been identified as surplus. On 4.2.2000 another letter was issued by the respondents directing him either for voluntary retirement or else his services will be terminated. It is alleged by the petitioner that on 29.2.2000 he was forced to sign an application for voluntary retirement. However, on 22.5.2000 he prayed for withdrawal of the said application for voluntary retirement. On 29.5.2000 the petitioner was informed that he would be released from service of the company at the close of the working hours on 31.5.2000. The petitioner, thereafter, filed several representations against the order releasing him from service. Petitioners further case is that similarly 32 officers were also identified as surplus but they have been accommodated in different Mines and Plants by the respondents. It is further alleged that 10 other persons who were forced to fill up voluntary retirement applications, like the petitioner, were taken back after cancelling their voluntary retirement applications. The representation filed by the petitioner is said to have been rejected by the respondents.

(3.) MR . P.K. Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, firstly drawn my attention to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents and submitted that due to uneconomic operation and enviability a number of mines in Mosabani, i.e. Banalapa, Badia, Pathargora and Kendadin had been closed under Section 25 -O of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947. With the closure of the establishments services of 3131 workmen stood terminated. These workmen were entitled to retrenchment compensation at the rate of 15 days wages for each completed years of service. However, they were given opportunity to opt for voluntary retirement. Simultaneously the Company also decided to abolish 45 posts of executives and issued a circular on 8.12.1999 informing all the employees that Mosabani Mines has since been closed and the Company is not in a position to provide alternative job. Accordingly the officers who were working in Mosabani Mines including other Mines were given opportunity to avail voluntary retirement under HCL (Voluntary Retirement) Scheme, 1999. The Officers who do not opt for voluntary retirement on or before 31st December. 1999 will be paid three months notice pay and their services shall stand terminated. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner opted for voluntary retirement which was accepted by the Corporation and he submitted all no due certificates and received all retirement benefits. The petitioner was released from the Companys Service with effect from 31.12.2000 and he received Rs. 18.13.299.66 paise. Learned counsel submitted that after receiving the aforesaid amount the petitioner filed representation for the withdrawal of his application for voluntary retirement which was rightly rejected by the respondents.