Bombay High Court
Vinay Narayan Bhat And Others vs The Maharashtra State Textile ... on 15 December, 2016
Bench: R.M. Borde
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 3556 OF 2016
1. Vinay s/o. Narayan Bhat,
Age : 58 years, Occu.: Service,
(Retired Employee of
Devgiri Textile Mills),
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad
2. Pratap s/o. Baburao Patil,
Age : 54 years, Occu.: Service,
(Retired Employee of
Pratap Textile Mills),
3. Nagnath s/o. Mahadeo Pawar,
Age : 47 years, Occu.: Service,
(Rtd Employee of
Shri Shahu Chatrapati Textile Mills),
4. Tushar s/o. Madhukar Kulkarni,
Age : 52 years, Occu.: Service,
(Retired Employee of
Devgiri Textile Mills),
5. Dayanand s/o. Bandappa Khot,
Age : 56 years, Occu.: Service,
(Retired Employee of
Narsing Textile Mills),
6. Vitthal s/o. Shankar Malvatkar,
Age : 56 years, Occu.: Service,
(Retired Employee of
Narsing Textile Mills),
7. Sunil s/o. Shripat Aitwade,
Age : 57 years, Occu.: Service,
(Rtd Employee of
Shri Shahu Chatrapati Textile Mills),
All the petitioner nos. 2 to 7 are
Through their G.P.A. Petitioner
no.1 Vinay s/o. Narayan Bhat ..PETITIONERS
::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2016 01:09:23 :::
2 wp3556-2016
VERSUS
1. The Maharashtra State Textile
Corporation Ltd.,
(A Government of Maharashtra
undertaking)
303, Kshamalaya, 37, New Marine Lines,
Opp. S.N.D.P. Patkar Hall,
Mumbai - 400 020.
Through the Managing Director/Manager.
2. The State of Maharashtra,
Textile Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32
Through the Secretary.
3. Sant Rohidas Charmodyog &
Charmakar Vikas Mahamandal
Maryadit (LIDCOM),
(A Government of Maharashtra
undertaking)
Bombay life building, 5th Floor,
45, Vir Nariman Marg,
Mumbai - 01.
Through the Managing Director.
4. The State of Maharashtra,
Social Justice and Special Asst.
Division, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32.
Through the Secretary. ..RESPONDENTS
----
Mr. P.P. Mandlik, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr. Sachin V. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent no.1
Mr. S.A. Dhumal, Advocate for respondent no.3
Mr. S.B. Yawalkar, A.G.P. for respondent no.4/State
None for respondent no. 2 though served.
----
CORAM : R.M. BORDE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 29th NOVEMBER, 2016
PRONOUNCED ON: 15th DECEMBER, 2016
::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2016 01:09:23 :::
3 wp3556-2016
JUDGMENT (PER : SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.):
Rule, returnable forthwith. With the consent of
the parties, heard finally.
2. The petitioners, who are ex-employees of
respondent no.1-Maharashtra State Textile Corporation
Limited, (a Government of Maharashtra Undertaking), have
sought refund of the ex-gratia amounts, which were
received by them from respondent no.1, while taking
voluntary retirement from service and which were repaid
by them to respondent no.1, while getting re-employment
with respondent no.3 LIDCOM.
3. The petitioners were employed by respondent
no.1. Respondent no.1 wanted to close its mills, as it
was sustaining losses. Respondent no.1 floated the
Voluntary Retirement Scheme (for short, "V.R.S.") and
offered its employees certain amounts by way of
ex-gratia/compensation, in lieu of their retiring from
the service voluntarily. The petitioners accepted that
offer and sought V.R.S. on receiving the amounts of ex-
gratia. Respondent no.1 issued a Circular dated
28.10.2002, informing its employees that in case they
4 wp3556-2016
showed willingness to take employment in other
Corporations of the Government of Maharashtra, they
would be absorbed in those Corporations on being
selected. However, in that event they would be required
to refund to respondent no.1 the ex-gratia amounts
received by them earlier while taking V.R.S. The
employees were called upon to send their Bio-Datas, in
case they were willing to be absorbed in other
Corporations on the above terms. After receiving the
requests from the ex-employees, including the present
petitioners, for re-employment, respondent no.1
recommended their names for being appointed with
respondent no.3 - Corporation (LIDCOM). Accordingly,
they were selected and appointed by respondent no.3. The
petitioners refunded the amounts of ex-gratia to
respondent no.1 on the following dates :-
Peti- Names of the Amount of Date of Refund
tioner Petitioners V.R.S. to respondent
Nos. ex-gratia no.1
1 V.N. Bhat 5,75,000 14/09/2006
2 P.B. Patil 2,00,302 07/08/2006
3 N.M. Pawar 2,38,202 14/08/2006
4 T.M. Kulkarni 2,43,006 07/04/2008
5 D.B. Khot 1,83,220 14/08/2006
6 V.S. Malwadkar 1,69,667 02/12/2006
7 S.S. Aitwade 2,28,260 10/08/2006
5 wp3556-2016
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that the petitioners were subjected to due process of
selection by respondent no.3 and, thereafter, they came
to be appointed afresh. Their previous services were not
to be considered for seniority or for any other
purposes. Respondent no.3 had made it clear that they
would not be responsible for any dues and payments in
respect of their previous services with respondent no.1.
The service conditions of the petitioners were to be
governed by the Rules framed by respondent no.3. The
services of the petitioners with respondent no.1 had no
nexus with their previous services with respondent no.1.
Therefore, according to him, the petitioners were not
liable to refund to respondent no.1 the amounts of
ex-gratia received by them while taking V.R.S. However,
due to threats and pressure exerted by respondent no.1,
the petitioners were compelled to refund the amounts of
ex-gratia to respondent no.1. He further submits that
the petitioners are entitled to get the said amounts
refunded from respondent no.1. He submits that the
similarly situated employees had filed Writ Petition
No.1013 of 2010 (Hiralal s/o Dagduji Gatkhane and
6 wp3556-2016
another Vs. LIDCOM Sant Rohidas Charmodyog and Charmakar
Vikas Mahamandal Maryadit and others), decided on
10.07.2015, wherein this Court held that respondent no.1
was not entitled to get back the amounts of ex-gratia
from its ex-employees, who had taken V.R.S., on their
getting re-employed in other Corporation. Therefore,
relying on the said judgment, he submits that the
amounts refunded by the petitioners may be ordered to be
given back to them by issuing necessary writ or
directions against respondent no.1.
5. One Mr.Ratnakar Ganpatrao Chegade, Senior
Consultant (Personnel and Administration) of respondent
no.1 filed affidavit-in-reply on behalf of respondent
no.1 and opposed the petition. On the basis of the
contents of the said reply, the learned counsel for
respondent no.1 submits that the petitioners at their
free-will resigned from the employment of respondent
no.1. They accepted the benefits of V.R.S. based on the
Gujrath Pattern. Accordingly, they were paid
compensation towards full and final settlement of their
claims while seeking V.R.S. They further voluntarily
agreed to pay back the amounts of compensation in case
7 wp3556-2016
they got employment with any other Corporations of the
Government of Maharashtra. Accordingly, on the
recommendations of respondent no.1, the petitioners got
re-employed with respondent no.3. Therefore, they
voluntarily repaid the amounts of compensation received
by them from respondent no.1 at the time of taking
V.R.S. In the circumstances, they are estopped from
claiming refund of the said amounts of compensation. He
further submits that in case the petitioners had any
grievance about refund of the amounts of compensation
against respondent no.1, they should have approached the
Civil Court or the Labour Court, where an alternate
remedy was available for them for claiming back from
respondent no.1 the amounts of compensation repaid by
them. According to him, the remedy that was available to
the petitioners for refund of the amounts of
compensation has been lost due to lapse of time. He
further submits that the employees similarly situated
with the present petitioners had filed Writ Petition
No.2870 of 2009 (Padmakar P. Moon and Ors Vs. State and
Ors.), decided on 19.11.2009, seeking refund of the
V.R.S. benefits received by them from respondent No.1
with interest. However, the said petition came to be
8 wp3556-2016
disposed of by Nagpur Bench of this Court. He submits
that the judgment in the case of Hiralal Dagdu Gatkhane
(Supra), is not applicable to the facts of the present
case. On these grounds, he submits that the petition may
be dismissed.
6. Indisputably, the petitioners, who were in the
employment of respondent no.1, accepted V.R.S., on
receiving the amounts of ex-gratia/compensation offered
by respondent no.1. Respondent no.1 issued a circular
dated 28.10.2002 (Exh.R-3) informing the other
Corporations of the Government of Maharashtra that due
to closure of the Mills of respondent no.1, the
Officers, Supervisors and Clerks have rendered jobless.
It was further mentioned that in case they were willing
to have employment in other Corporations, they would be
absorbed on being selected in those Corporations
provided, they should refund to respondent no.1 the
amounts of compensation received from respondent no.1
while taking V.R.S. The said circular was displayed on
the notice board of the Headquarters of respondent no.1
as well.
9 wp3556-2016
7. It seems that the petitioners applied for re-
employment in response to the circular issued by
respondent no.1. Accordingly their names were
recommended by respondent no.1 to respondent no.3 for
being absorbed in the services of respondent no.3.
Considering the recommendations of respondent no.1, the
letters were issued by respondent no.3 to the
petitioners, stating the terms and conditions of
employment and calling upon them to appear for interview
along with their original certificates of eligibility
along with true copies thereof. Accordingly, the
petitioners appeared for interview. The petitioners came
to be selected and appointed by respondent no.3 to the
posts as suitable to their eligibility. The orders of
appointment of the petitioners were sent by respondent
no.3 to respondent no.1.
8. Thereafter, respondent no.1 sent letters dated
08.08.2006 to the petitioners informing that they were
selected by respondent no.3 for the posts mentioned in
the said letters. It was specifically mentioned in those
letters that their appointments by respondent no.3 were
fresh ones and the services rendered by them with
10 wp3556-2016
respondent no.1 would not be considered by respondent
no.3 for the purpose of seniority or for any other
purposes. It was further mentioned that since the
petitioners were appointed by the Public Sector
Corporation, it was obligatory on their part to refund
to respondent no.1 the ex-gratia amounts received by
them while taking V.R.S. The petitioners were called
upon to deposit ex-gratia amounts, without interest,
with respondent no.1 and on depositing the said amounts,
collect their respective appointment letters to enable
themselves to join the services with respondent no.3.
The said letters are produced by the petitioners at
Exh."B" (Colly.). Accordingly, the petitioners re-paid
the amounts of ex-gratia. They have produced the
receipts showing that they re-paid the ex-gratia amounts
to respondent no.1 in response to the letters dated
08.08.2006. It seems that after repayment of the amounts
of ex-gratia, the petitioners were given appointment
orders by respondent no.1 in order to enable them to
join employment with respondent no.3.
9. The above referred facts clearly disclose that
the petitioners voluntarily deposited the amounts of
11 wp3556-2016
ex-gratia/compensation with respondent no.1 with a view
to get employment with respondent no.3. The interview
call letters as well as letters issued by respondent
no.1 were sufficiently clear to indicate that the
petitioners were going to be employed with respondent
no.3 as freshers and their previous services rendered
with respondent no.1 were not to be tagged with their
new services for any purposes. Despite knowing this
factual position, the petitioners voluntarily refunded
the ex-gratia amounts to respondent no.1. If the
petitioners had any grievance against the claim of
respondent no.1 for refund of ex-gratia amounts, they
should have approached the appropriate forum for
redressal of their grievance prior to depositing the
ex-gratia amounts with respondent no.1. There is nothing
on record to show that the petitioners repaid the
amounts of ex-gratia/compensation to respondent no.1
under protest. It is for the first time that on
24.08.2015 and then on 25.09.2015, that they raised
grievance about re-payment of the amounts of
ex-gratia/compensation made by them in the year 2006 to
respondent no.1.
12 wp3556-2016
10. It is obvious that the petitioners have lost
the remedy to recover the amounts of ex-gratia repaid by
them to respondent no.1 by lapse of time. Moreover, the
facts of the matter clearly disclose that the amounts of
ex-gratia were refunded by the petitioners to respondent
no.1 voluntarily, obviously with a view to get
employment with respondent no.3. Respondent no.1 has
produced a Chart (Exh.R-9) showing the benefits earned
by the petitioners, after getting employment with
respondent no.3, which are approximately ranging from
Rs.25 Lakh to Rs.68 Lakh. In the circumstances, the
petitioners are estopped from claiming refund of the
amounts deposited by them with respondent no.1. The
claim of the petitioners for refund of the said amounts
is palpably beyond the period of limitation. In the
circumstances, they are not entitled to get the relief
sought from this Court in exercise of extraordinary
jurisdiction under the Article 226 of the Constitution
of India.
11. The judgment in the case of Hiralal Dagduji
Gatkhane (supra), is distinguishable in view of the
facts of the present matter. In that case, the
13 wp3556-2016
petitioners had not deposited the amount of ex-gratia/
compensation with respondent no.1 while taking V.R.S.
The claim for refund of the amounts of ex-gratia/
compensation of the V.R.S. was made by respondent
no.1 from the said petitioners vide letter dated
19.01.2010, i.e. after about four years of re-employment
of the petitioners therein with respondent no.3. In the
circumstances, it was held that respondent no.1
was not entitled to ask for refund of the
amounts of ex-gratia/compensation from the petitioners
therein.
12. As stated above, the petitioners herein had
voluntarily deposited the amount of ex-gratia with
respondent no.1 in order to seek employment with
respondent no.3. In the circumstances, the above cited
judgment would be of no help to the petitioners
to claim refund of ex-gratia/compensation amounts
from respondent no.1.
13. In the above circumstances, we are not inclined
to allow the claim of the petitioners for refund
of the amounts of ex-gratia/compensation from
14 wp3556-2016
respondent no.1. The petition is devoid of any
substance and is liable to be dismissed. In the result,
we pass the following order:
O R D E R
(i) The writ petition is dismissed.
(ii) Rule is discharged accordingly.
(iii) The parties shall bear their own costs.
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL] [R.M. BORDE]
JUDGE JUDGE
mandawgad_sa/wp3556-2016
