Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hmt Karmik Sangh R & R, Employees Union, ... vs Union Of India And Others on 3 May, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061440
CWP-27160-2016 -1- 2024:PHHC:061440
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
106 CWP-27160-2016 (O&M)
Date of decision: 03.05.2024
HMT KARMIK SANGH R & R, EMPLOYEES UNION, HMT LIMITED
PINJORE, DISTRICT PANCHKULA & ANOTHER
....PETITIONERS
Vs.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: Mr. Ishaan Bhardwaj, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Ms. Geeta Singhwal, Senior Panel Counsel
for the respondent No.1-UOI.
Mr. Lalit Thakur, Advocate and
Mr. Utkarsh Khataua, Advocate
for respondent Nos. 2 to 4.
Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate
for respondent No. 5.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J (ORAL)
1. The petitioners through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of
the Constitution of India are seeking setting aside of Voluntary Retirement
Scheme (for short 'VRS') dated 04.11.2016 (Annexure P-6). They are further
seeking direction to respondents to count training period of two years as part of
service while calculating service period for VRS benefits.
2. The petitioners are Employees Union/Association. The members of
the Union/Association were working with Tractor Division of HMT Limited. On
account of dilapidated financial condition, the Government of India decided to
close down Tractor Operation of aforesaid Company. It is apt to mention here
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061440
CWP-27160-2016 -2- 2024:PHHC:061440
that HMT Limited is a Public Sector Undertaking. In the process of closure of
manufacturing unit, the Government introduced Voluntary Retirement Scheme
dated 04.11.2016. In the said scheme, employees were extended two options i.e.
(i) to accept compensation as per jotted down formula or (ii) would be paid
compensation under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
3. Mr. Ishaan Bhardwaj, Advocate contends that VRS was arbitrary
and discriminatory in nature. Thus, it was violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. The scheme has discriminated similarly situated
employees. An employee who has completed 29 years of service is getting
altogether different amount than an employee who has completed 30 years of
service. It amounts to discrimination between two similarly situated employees.
The respondent has further included training period of those employees, who
were getting Basic Pay, DA, HRA and CCA during the said period. The training
period of those employees who were getting lump sum amount has not been
reckoned for VRS/VSS ex-gratia. Training means training. The respondent
could not discriminate between two employees who had got similar training,
however, were getting emoluments in a different manner.
4. Per contra, Mr. Lalit Thakur, and Mr. Utkarsh Khataua, counsels for
respondent Nos. 2 to 4 submit that respondent was a Public Limited Company
and it could close down its manufacturing unit without framing VRS. The
respondent, as per Industrial Disputes Act, was liable to pay 3 months' salary.
There was no need to pay compensation as contemplated by impugned scheme.
The respondent with intent to help its employees, had introduced the said
scheme. The members of Union/Association, during the pendency of present
petition, have accepted compensation as contemplated by impugned policy. The
respondent-Company has cleared all the dues of members of the petitioners
Union/Association, thus, no cause survives.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061440
CWP-27160-2016 -3- 2024:PHHC:061440
5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
6. The petitioners are assailing Voluntarily Retirement Scheme dated
04.11.2016 implemented by the respondent-Company. The scheme was
introduced by respondent which is a Public Sector Undertaking. The decision to
close down Tractor Division of the Company was taken by Government of
India. The respondent could close down its manufacturing unit in terms of
different provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and in that situation it was liable
to pay compensation as per said Act. However, considering the interest of
employees, the respondent has introduced the said scheme. The petitioners are
Union/Association of employees. Every employee has independent cause of
action but petition has been filed by association and all the members of the
association have not approached this Court. Majority of members without any
demur had accepted compensation under VRS. Few members through their
Union/Association have filed present petition.
7. A policy framed by State can be doubted only in terms of
paramaters laid down by Supreme Court in plethora of judgments. The policy in
question is more or less a financial/compensatory policy. The petitioners are
assailing said policy primarily on the ground that there is discrimination
between two employees on the ground of length of service. The respondent was
bound to make policy considering length of service of employees. It was bound
to categorize employees. If an employee has completed 20 years of service, he
cannot be compared with another employee who has completed 30 years of
service. Merely the fact that respondent has divided employees on the basis of
30 years of service, it cannot be held that there was discrimination between two
employees. The dividing period either 20 years or 30 years was bound to treat
the employees differently i.e. who fall prior to cut off point and after the cut off
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061440
CWP-27160-2016 -4- 2024:PHHC:061440
point. It is contemplated in every economic policy e.g., under the Income Tax
Act, there are Tax Slabs and a man who crosses one slab even by few rupees has
to pay differently. Similarly, under the repealed Central Excise Act, there was
exemption scheme for Small Scale Industries. There was a cut off limit and a
person crossing the limit was liable to pay Excise Duty on the entire sale. In the
case in hand, the respondent, as per its wisdom has drawn the line of 30 years.
The employees who have completed 30 years of service have been classified in
one category and who have not completed 30 years of service, have been
classified in another category.
8. It is a settled proposition of law that Courts are not supposed to
substitute opinion of legislature in policy matters. The authorities know better
about the problems and their solutions. The Courts can interfere if there is
violation of Fundamental Rights or statutory provisions or the policy is patently
or manifestly arbitrary.
9. In the case in hand, this Court does not find that impugned policy is
in violation of any fundamental right of the petitioners guaranteed by
Constitution of India or any statutory provision. The Court further does not find
that there is patent or manifest arbitrariness in the said policy.
10. The petitioners are further claiming that training period of
employees who had drawn emoluments has been reckoned for computation of
compensation under VRS whereas training period of those who were getting
lump sum has not been reckoned. The respondent at the time of induction, had
classified trainees in two categories i.e. trainees who were getting emoluments
and who were getting lump sum amount. The petitioners, at the stage of
induction did not object to the different mode and manner of payment than
others who were getting emoluments i.e. Basic Pay, DA and HRA. The members
of the Union/Association by their act and conduct admitted their status as
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061440
CWP-27160-2016 -5- 2024:PHHC:061440
separate set of trainees. They form a separate category of trainees. At this
belated stage, they are trying to claim that they are at par with those trainees
who were getting Basic Pay, DA, HRA etc. It is apt to notice here that during the
pendency of present petition, all the members of the Union/Association have
already accepted offered amount and respondent has cleared their outstanding
dues. Thus, at this stage, any order tinkering the impugned scheme would
complicate the settled issued. The unit of respondent has already closed.
11. Mr. Ishaan Bhardwaj, with respect to deduction of Income Tax, on
instructions, submits that Income Tax Authorities have already refunded
deducted amount. In the wake of statement made by Mr. Ishaan Bhardwaj, no
order with respect to deduction of TDS is warranted.
12. The petition being bereft of merit deserves to be dismissed and
accordingly dismissed.
13. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
03.05.2024 [JAGMOHAN BANSAL]
manoj JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
