Coordination Committee Of ... vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 617 Gua

                                                                    Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010134032019




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                   Case No. : WA/61/2022

            COORDINATION COMMITTEE OF PRIVATIZATION
            OF ASSAM STATE TEXTILE CORPORATION LTD., REP. BY SRI RAMESH CH.
            ROY, CHIEF COORDINATOR OF THE CO-ORDINATION COMMITTEE,
            NAOPARA, DIST.- BONGAIGAON, ASSAM.

            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.
            REP. BY THE PRINCIPLE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM,
            DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-
            781006.

            2:THE PRINCIPLE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
             DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISE
             DISPUR
             GUWAHATI- 781006.

            3:THE ASSAM TEXTILE CORPORATION LTD.
             REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR
             DIC
             INDUSTRIAL STATE
             BAMUNIMAIDAM
             GUWAHATI-21.

            4:THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE
            ASSAM
             GUWAHATI-21

            5:PRIVATE SECTOR COLLABORATION
            REP. BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR GOENKA WOOLEN MILLS. RANI
            BAZAR BUILDING
             FANCY BAZAR
             GUWAHATI- 781001

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. S BANIK
                                                                          Page No.# 2/4


Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

                                  BEFORE
                       HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                   HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

                                          ORDER

(Oral) Date : 22-02-2022 Sudhanshu Dhulia, C.J.

Heard Mr. H Talukdar, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. R.B. Bora, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for the respondent No.2 and Mr. G Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.

2. This writ appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 18.05.2017 passed in WP(C) 6033/2010.

3. The appellant/writ petitioner is a co-ordination committee of the workers of Assam State Textile Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'ASTCL'). ASTCL is a Government of Assam company and was incorporated on 26.02.1980. The company could not run properly and it was then handed over to a private company, namely, Goenka Woolen Mills Ltd. in the year 1993. At the relevant point of time, the company had about 700 workers. It appears that the private company also could not run the company successfully and therefore, the company was again handed over to the State in 2002-03. However, the company was closed practically in the year 2003 and vide notification dated 28.06.2007, the Government of Assam formally declared closure of the company. Thereafter, a scheme was announced by the Government of Assam, which is Voluntary Retirement Scheme, in the year 2004 and 2006 for the benefit of the workers who were not formally discharged or had not been paid full and final dues before declaring closure of the company. ASTCL made several announcements in the newspaper asking their workers to apply for the VRS Scheme and those who had applied were given the benefit of VRS Page No.# 3/4

Scheme. Since the members of the appellant/writ petitioner committee were not given the benefit of VRS Scheme, they were constrained to file the writ petition before this Court.

4. In the writ petition, the stand which was taken by the ASTCL is that the members of the writ petitioner committee were not liable to be given the benefit of VRS Scheme inasmuch as, they were not on the roll of the State Corporation in the year 2002 and they had admittedly resigned from the company when it was being run by the private company. The ASTCL also filed an affidavit before the learned Single Judge annexing the resignation letters of the members of the writ petitioner committee which was not disputed by the writ petitioner committee.

5. It is an admitted position that the members of the writ petitioner committee had resigned between 1997 and 2002 when the company was being run by the private company. When the private company, i.e. Goenka Woolen Mills failed to revive the company, the company was again taken by the Government in the year 2003 and subsequently when it was closed down, VRS Scheme was announced and the benefit of the VRS Scheme was to be given only to those workers who were still on the roll of the company.

6. The learned Single Judge has given a distinction between the resignation and retirement in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the order dated 18.05.2017. Paragraphs 5 and 6 read as under:

"5. The concept of resignation and retirement was under consideration of the Supreme Court in UCO Bank vs. Sanwar Mal reported in (2004) 4 SCC 412, where in para-9, the Supreme Court observed as follows:

"9. ... The words 'resignation' and 'retirement' carry different meanings in common parlance. An employee can resign at any point of time, even on the second day of his appointment but in the case of retirement he retires only after attaining the age of superannuation or in the case of voluntary retirement on completion of qualifying service. The effect of resignation and retirement to the extent that there is severance of employment but in service jurisprudence both the expressions are understood differently. Under the Regulations, the expressions 'resignation' and 'retirement' have been employed for different purpose and carry different meanings.

Page No.# 4/4

The pension scheme herein is based on actuarial calculation; it is a self- financing scheme, which does not depend upon budgetary support and consequently it constitutes a complete code by itself. The scheme essentially covers retirees as the credit balance to their provident fund account is larger as compared to employees who resigned from service. Moreover, resignation brings about complete cessation of master-and- servant relationship whereas voluntary retirement maintains the relationship for the purposes of grant of retiral benefits, in view of the past service-Similarly, acceptance of resignation is dependent upon discretion of the employer whereas retirement is completion of service in terms of Regulations/rules framed by the bank-Resignation can be tendered irrespective of the length of service whereas in the case of voluntary retirement, the employee has to complete qualifying service for retiral benefits."

6. In the additional affidavit filed by the Textile Corporation on 21.1.201 5, the resignation letters of all the employees represented by the petitioner are annexed and they reflect that the concerned employee had individually tendered their resignation. The genuineness of the resignation letters and acceptance of the resignation, is not disputed by either party."

7. Since the VRS Scheme is not applicable to the writ petitioner, the claim of the writ petitioner was rejected by the learned Single Judge and the writ petition was dismissed vide the impugned order. Thereafter, the writ petitioner company filed a review petition and this Court by its order dated 03.04.2019 closed the review petition granting liberty to the writ petitioner company to approach the appellate forum.

8. The present writ appeal has been filed before this Court after a period of more than 700 days and this Court vide order dated 10.02.2022 condoned the delay in filing the present appeal.

9. All the same, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length and subject to what we have observed abvoe, we do not find any scope for interference in the matter and accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

                                       JUDGE                        CHIEF JUSTICE

Comparing Assistant