Bombay High Court
Waman Laxman Vaidya And Anr vs Richardson And ... on 6 January, 2023
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, M. W. Chandwani
WP-256-05(J) 1/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.256 of 2005
1. Waman Laxman Vaidya,
Aged adult, Ex-Manager, F & A.
Richardson & Cruddas (1972) Ltd.,
R/o 44 Dindayal Nagar,
Bank of Baroda Colony, Nagpur-22
2. Vinod Chandrashekhar Pandit,
Aged adult, Pensioner,
R/o 1/A Dindayal Nagar,
Nagpur-22. ....... PETITIONERS
...V E R S U S...
Amended as per
Hon'ble Court's order
1. Richardson & Cruddas (1972) Ltd.
dated 12.07.2022 Government of India Undertaking,
sd/-Counsel for
petitioners A Subsidiary of Bharat Yantra Nigam Ltd.,
(A.M.Ghare, Adv.)
Sir J.J.Road, Byculla,
Mumbai-400 008.
Amended as per Court's 2. Union of India, through its Secretary,
order dated 06.01.2021
Sd/-Counsel for Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises,
petitioners.
(A.M.Ghare,Adv.) New Delhi.
....... RESPONDENTS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri P.V.Ghare, Advocate with Shri A.M.Ghare, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Rohit Masurkar, Advocate with Shri S.G.Deshpande, Advocate for
respondent no.1.
Ms Neerja Choube, Advocate for respondent no.2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM :- A.S.CHANDURKAR AND M.W.CHANDWANI, JJ.
ARGUMENTS WERE HEARD ON 18.10.2022
JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED ON 06.01.2023
WP-256-05(J) 2/7
JUDGMENT (Per A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.)
The petitioners were employed with the respondent no.1-
Richardson and Cruddas Limited, a Government of India Undertaking and
subsidiary of Bharat Yantra Nigam Limited. Pursuant to a Scheme of
Voluntary Retirement the petitioner no.1 opted for the same and was
accordingly relieved from service with effect from 30.11.1996. The
petitioner no.2 resigned from service in the year 1997. According to the
petitioners, the Company revised its pay-scales in the year 1995 with effect
from 01.01.1992. The benefit of revision of pay-scale was not given to the
petitioners. The petitioners thus claim pensionary benefits on the basis of
revised pay-scale alongwith arrears. They entered into communication with
the Company by issuing various letters including communication dated
17.10.1999 that was issued by the petitioner no.1. In the said
communication they specifically stated that other similarly situated
employees had been granted benefit of the revised pay-scale and were paid
the entire arrears on account of such pay revision. Names of five such
employees were specifically mentioned therein. In response, the Company
on 23.11.2001 issued a communication to the petitioner no.1 and on
28.01.2002 to the petitioner no.2 stating therein that the arrears of pay
WP-256-05(J) 3/7
revision effective from 01.01.1992 was payable to ex-officers of the
Company. The arrears were to be paid in instalments @ Rs.1,000/- per
month until the entire amount of arrears was paid. Accordingly cheque for
Rs.1,000/- was enclosed to the said replies given to the petitioners. The
petitioners on 27.02.2002 issued a legal notice to the Company stating
therein that the payment of the entire arrears by instalment would take
about 25 years for such compliance. Similarly situated employees had been
paid in lumpsum. Hence by stating that they were accepting the aforesaid
amounts under protest, the Company was called upon to pay the arrears of
the pay revision. In absence of any further development, present writ
petition came to be filed on 25.12.2004.
2. Shri P.V.Ghare, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that the Company ought to have paid arrears of pay revision to the
petitioners in lumpsum and not by way of monthly instalment. Inviting
attention to the communication dated 17.10.1999 and especially assertions
with regard to lumpsum payments made to similarly situated employees
who also retired under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, it was submitted
that the Company had not denied giving such differential treatment given to
the petitioners. He referred to the averments in paragraph 4 of the writ
petition wherein the names of similarly situated employees being 1] Shri
WP-256-05(J) 4/7
J.K.Varshney, 2] Shri M.K.Nashine, 3] Shri C.D.Kothar, 4] Shri V.K.Dange
and 5] Shri K.M.Tikekar had not been specifically denied. There was no
justification in making the payment of such arrears by monthly instalment.
Though the petitioners accepted the instalment @ Rs.,1,000/- per month,
considerable period would be required to receive the entire amount of
arrears. It was further submitted that though the Company was declared as
a sick industry by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, it
was now under the process of disinvestment. The same was being
undertaken under the supervision of the respondent no.2-Ministry.
Reference was also made to 48th Annual Report of the Company for the year
2020-21 to urge that the Company was now earning profit and it could be
directed to pay the arrears of pay revision to the petitioners in lumpsum. It
was thus submitted that appropriate relief be granted to the petitioners.
3. Reply has been filed by the respondent no.1-Company in which it
is stated that the process of disinvestment as per the guidelines of the Niti
Aayog as well as Department of Investment and Public Asset Management
was being undertaken. Shri Rohit Masurkar, learned counsel for the
respondent no.1 referred to the communication dated 18.02.2020 issued by
the Chief Financial Officer wherein reference was made to 46 th Annual
Report of the Company for the year 2018-19.
WP-256-05(J) 5/7
Ms Neerja Choube, learned counsel for the respondent no.2
submitted that with regard to payment of arrears of the petitioners, the
same was a matter of day-to-day operations of the Company and it was for
the Company to comply with the statutory wage revision as per guidelines of
the Government of India.
By filing rejoinder, the petitioners have referred to the
communications dated 23.04.2002 and 11.05.2002 issued to them
respectively indicating that payment of monthly instalment of Rs.1,000/-
each was being continued and being accepted under protest.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we have
perused the documents on record. Insofar as the entitlement of the
petitioners to arrears of pay revision is concerned, the same is not disputed
by the Company. On the contrary, it has been informed to the petitioners
that the arrears on account of such pay revision effective from 01.01.1992
would be paid in instalment of Rs.1,000/- per month. The petitioners have
been accepting this payment under protest. The only question therefore is
whether a direction to make the payment of arrears admissible to the
petitioners in lumpsum can be issued.
As stated above, initially in the communication dated 17.10.1999
issued by the petitioner no.1 and thereafter in paragraph 4 of the writ
WP-256-05(J) 6/7
petition specific averments have been made giving the names of similarly
situated employees who have received the amount of arrears admissible
from pay revision in lumpsum. There is no denial either to the
communication dated 17.10.1999 issued by the petitioner no.1 or to the
averments in paragraph 4 of the writ petition despite the fact that an
affidavit on behalf of the respondent no.1 has been filed on 09.09.2021.
These averments therefore have gone uncontroverted. In the absence of any
denial to these assertions it will have to be assumed that the said averments
are accepted by the Company. As stated above, the entitlement of the
petitioners to arrears pursuant to revision in the pay-scales is not disputed.
Though the Company was initially declared as a sick industry, it is seen from
the Annual Report of the year 2018-19 and thereafter 48 th Annual Report for
the year 2020-21 that the profit after tax indicated in the Company's
financial performance is Rs.29.47 Crores for the Financial Year 2019-20 and
Rs.13.41 Crores for the Financial Year 2020-21. It is thus clear that the
Company is now shown to be earning profit.
5. In the light of the aforesaid, we do not find any reason not to issue
a direction to the respondent no.1 to pay the petitioners the arrears
admissible to them pursuant to revision of the pay-scales that has been made
effective from 01.01.1992 in lumpsum. The respondent no.2 has clearly
WP-256-05(J) 7/7
stated in its affidavit that it being a matter of day-to-day operations of the
Company, it is the liability of the Company to make such payment.
6. Accordingly, it is directed that the respondent no.1-Company shall
within a period of two months of receipt of copy of the judgment pay the
petitioners the balance amount of arrears admissible to them pursuant to
revision of the pay-scales with effect from 01.01.1992. Needless to state
that the payments already made in instalments shall be taken into account
while making the balance payment. In case of any difficulty faced by the
Company, it can obtain necessary guidance from the respondent no.2.
Failure to pay the balance amount of arrears admissible to the petitioners
within aforesaid period of two months from the date of receiving the copy of
the judgment would render it liable to pay such balance amount of arrears
with interest @6% per annum on the expiry of the said period of two
months till realisation.
Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
(M.W.CHANDWANI, J.) (A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.)
Andurkar..
Digitally Signed byJAYANT S
ANDURKAR
Personal Assistant
Signing Date:
06.01.2023 18:20
