TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1696X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he subject-matter of the proceeding or from the absence of some preliminary proceeding or the court itself may not be legally constituted or suffer from certain disability by reason of extraneous circumstances. The question arose in DHARANGADHARA CHEMICAL WORKS LTD. VERSUS STATE OF SAURASHTRA [ 1956 (11) TMI 33 - SUPREME COURT ]. The question was whether the finding by the Tribunal under the Act about the party Respondents being workmen was liable to be interfered with. After dealing with various tests relating to determining the issue, this Court also held that It is equally well settled that the decision of the Tribunal on a question of fact which it has jurisdiction to determine is not liable to be questioned in proceedings Under Article 226 of the Constitution unless at the least it is shown to be fully unsupported by evidence. Application u/s 33A of the Act - HELD THAT:- An application Under Section 33A of the Act is not a civil suit. The provisions of Order VI Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as such, is not applicable to proceedings under the Act. Does it mean that the law as to pleadings is not to apply at all to proceedings under the Act or will it be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our Court finds that the Scheme was not the choice of the applicants but it was thrust upon the applicants. This amounted to refusal of employment in the guise of the Scheme. On this basis, the relief was granted. In the High Court, when application was made Under Section 17B of the Act, the applicants were directed to deposit the amount which they received. 28 applicants deposited the amount which they received under the Scheme. It is not disputed that the said amounts are with the Appellants - The court went on, no doubt, to consider the pay to be given to the NMR workers. The court proceeded to hold there was no reason for discriminating the NMR employees from other regular employed persons . The applicants have failed to plead and prove, and on the yardstick of it being a case of no evidence, the Award became infirm and was liable to be interfered with. At any rate, the findings, which have been rendered by the Labour Court, which is to the effect that it was not the choice of the applicants and was thrust upon the complainants amounting to refusal of employment, is completely insupportable both in law and on facts. The finding that there was no demand from the side of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assed on an application filed Under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) by 90 workers of the Appellant, the Respondents herein who shall be referred as the applicants. 3. On 28.10.1992, the High Court, in Writ Petition O.J.C. No. 2420 of 1989, held that the NMR workers in the Rengali Hydro Electric Project (RHEP) who had worked continuously for a period of five years on the date of the judgment, were entitled for regularization. They were found entitled to same pay as regular employees. The Appellants challenged the same by a Special Leave Petition which was converted to Civil Appeal Nos. 7342-7343 of 1993. 4. In short, the case of the applicants (who were NMR workers in the Rengali Unit) before the Labour Court was that a reference had been made to the Labour Court dated 02.07.1999 for adjudicating disputes between the Appellants-Management and its workmen. Issues were essentially whether NMR workers were entitled to payment of Hydro Allowance at revised rates. The further issue was, whether NMR workers of the Rengali Unit of the Orissa Hydro Power Corporation, who were being paid medical allowance, were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shall be enforced from 01.05.2000 to 31.05.2000 in Rengali Unit. A Notification, along with the Scheme, was to be circulated amongst the workers. It is the Appellants case that 260 NMRs/Contingent Khalasis requested for separation out of 357. The Corporation accepted the application of 254 NMRs/Contingent Khalasis. On 25.05.2000, a discussion took place between the Management and the Union. The decisions were taken regarding regularisation of maximum number of 43 workmen and also about the number of workmen to be considered under the VSS. The first applicant applied on 31.05.2000 under the Scheme. The application of the applicant was accepted on 08.06.2000. It is Appellants case that applicant's letter dated 01.06.2000 was never received by the Appellants. On 13.06.2000, in fact, first applicant sought payment of gratuity under the Scheme. On 17.06.2000, the Corporation notified extension of the VSS for six days from 14.06.2000 to 24.06.2000. During that phase, 23 NMRs/Contingent Khalasis sought VSS benefits and the applications of 21 were accepted. 10. On 18.12.2000, an additional affidavit was filed by the Appellant in this Court in Civil Appeal No. 7343 of 1993, bringing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m manpower utilization. 14. The Scheme was applicable to employees who had joined before the date of ban imposed on recruitment. This submission, Appellants made, on the basis of documents which were brought on record after the arguments had commenced. The date of ban was 12.04.1993. It was further pointed out with reference to Exhibit 'H' which is produced before the Labour Court that applications contemplated witnesses. The witnesses were to be regular or work-charged employees in RHEP. Their names were to be disclosed. Clause (08) of Exhibit 'H' dated 24.04.2000, read as follows and was relied upon: 08. The willing employees will be required to open a SB Account in any Nationalised Bank in the locality because the payment toward ex-gratia and lump sum amount will be made by way of A/c Payee Cheque. To facilitate opening of Bank Account, a sum of Rs. 500/- may be paid to the concerned employee on request by way of advance which will be adjusted against his final dues. 15. He further submitted that on the basis of the applications filed by all the applicants along with several others, who had also applied, the Appellant had applied the yardstick of eligibi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to take VSS. I was told that unless I sign the VSS application I will lose (sic) everything and will be forced to dire striates. Therefore, I humbly request that my application dated 31.5.2000 may be returned to me for which I will remain ever obliged. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Giridhari Sahoo 1.6.2000 xxx xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis supplied) 18. He further contended that workers have also, immediately after the event, moved the Conciliation Officer. This is sufficient to show that they were initially not cognizant of the consequences and, at any rate, at the earliest, they have sought to resile. He also relied on the judgment of this Court in Management of Madurantakam Coop. Sugar Mills Limited v. S. Viswanathan (2005) 3 SCC 193. 19. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the Appellants, would point out that there was, at any rate, only one application in the nature of the application which we have just referred to, namely, that is to say, only one worker has brought on record an application stating about threat and coercion of the Appellants-Management and that the workmen never intended to take the VSS. No doubt, the case of Appellants is that the letter of f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vol. IX, p. 880]. When the jurisdiction of the court depends upon the existence of some collateral fact, it is well settled that the court cannot by a wrong decision of the fact give it jurisdiction which it would not otherwise possess [Vide Banbury v. Fuller, 9 Exch. 111; R v. Income Tax Special Purposes Commissioners, 21 QBD 313]. 10. A tribunal may be competent to enter upon an enquiry but in making the enquiry it may act in flagrant disregard of the Rules of procedure or where no particular procedure is prescribed, it may violate the principles of natural justice. A writ of certiorari may be available in such cases. An error in the decision or determination itself may also be amenable to a writ of certiorari but it must be a manifest error apparent on the face of the proceedings, e.g. when it is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law. ... (Emphasis supplied) 22. In Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmed Ishaque and Ors. AIR 1955 SC 233, this Court held: 21. ... On these authorities, the following propositions may be taken as established: (1) Certiorari will be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction, as when an inferior Court or Tribunal acts w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the following terms: 7. The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari Under Article 226 has been frequently considered by this Court and the true legal position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals: these are cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the court or tribunal acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior court or tribunal as a result of the appre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n an enquiry, acts in flagrant disregard of the Rules of procedure or violates the principles of natural justice where no particular procedure is prescribed. But a mere wrong decision cannot be corrected by a writ of certiorari as that would be using it as the cloak of an appeal in disguise but a manifest error apparent on the face of the proceedings based on a clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law or absence of or excess of jurisdiction, when shown, can be so corrected. In Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra [(1957) SCR 152] this Court once again observed that where the Tribunal having jurisdiction to decide a question comes to a finding of fact, such a finding is not open to question Under Article 226 unless it could be shown to be wholly unwarranted by the evidence. Likewise, in State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Sree Ram Rao [AIR 1963 S.C. 1723] this Court observed that where the Tribunal has disabled itself from reaching a fair decision by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case or where its conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person can ever have arrived ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion: No evidence' does not mean only a total dearth of evidence. It extends to any case where the evidence taken as a whole is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding, or where, in other words, no tribunal could reasonably reach that conclusion on that evidence. This no evidence principle clearly has something in common with the principle that perverse or unreasonable action is unauthorised and ultra vires. An order made without any evidence to support it is in truth, made without order made without any evidence is worthless, it is equal to having no evidence jurisdiction. (Emphasis supplied) 28. In fact, in the decision relied upon by the applicants, viz., S. Viswanathan (supra), it is, inter alia, held as follows: 12. Normally, the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, is the final court of facts in these types of disputes, but if a finding of fact is perverse or if the same is not based on legal evidence the High Court exercising a power either Under Article 226 or Under Article 227 of the Constitution can go into the question of fact decided by the Labour Court or the Tribunal. But before going into such an exercise it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he decision amenable* to certiorari jurisdiction. This would be the same as a finding which is wholly unwarranted by the evidence which is what this Court has laid down [See M/s. Perry and Co. Ltd. (supra)]. THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 33A OF THE ACT 30. The applicants were NMR workers. They moved the application before the Labour Court alleging violation of Section 33(1) of the Act. Section 33(1) of the Act, reads as follows: 33(1) During the pendency of any conciliation proceeding before a conciliation officer or a Board or of any proceeding before 2 an arbitrator or] a Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal in respect of an industrial dispute, no employer shall-- (a) in regard to any matter connected with the dispute, alter, to the prejudice of the workmen concerned in such dispute, the conditions of service applicable to them immediately before the commencement of such proceeding; or (b) for any misconduct connected with the dispute, discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or otherwise, any workmen concerned in such dispute, save with the express permission in writing of the authority before which the proceeding is pending. 31. Section 33A of the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... larize all NMR workers those who have completed 5 years of service or otherwise payment equal pay for equal work as their counter part in regular establishments are getting in the Rengali Hydro Power Project. 36. There is reference to the matters, which were pending, which we have, inter alia, referred to. We must notice the further pleading in the application filed by the applicants Under Section 33A of the Act: 9. To defraud the workmen for regularization of their services, appropriate authorities have obtained their signatures en masse on certain papers under the pretext of regularization of workmen and by showing undue influence of regularization of the service of the workmen that since the projects were temporary and they were to be regularized in the Corporation in regular cadre, the old job will come to an end and new job in Corporation would stand afresh for which the workmen without understanding the implication of application on plain faith with authority have signed such applications. A fraud was practiced on the workmen and such change amended to change service without leave of Tribunal, as such illegal. Change having been not voluntary, being actuated with frau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r into a contract is not fraud, unless the circumstances of the case are such that, regard being had to them, it is the duty of the person keeping silence to speak 2, or unless his silence, is, in itself, equivalent to speech. Explanation.-Mere silence as to facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not fraud, unless the circumstances of the case are such that, regard being had to them, it is the duty of the person keeping silence to speak, or unless his silence is, in itself, equivalent to speech. 41. Misrepresentation is separately defined in Section 18 of the Contract Act, as follows: 18. Misrepresentation defined.-- Misrepresentation means and includes-- (1) the positive assertion, in a manner not warranted by the information of the person making it, of that which is not true, though he believes it to be true; (2) any breach of duty which, without an intent to deceive, gains an advantage of the person committing it, or any one claiming under him, by misleading another to his prejudice, or to the prejudice of any one claiming under him; (3) causing, however innocently, a party to an agreement, to make a mistake as to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is made by a person of that which is not true in a manner which is not warranted by the information which he has. This is despite the fact that he may believe it to be true. In other words, in fraud, the person who makes an untruthful suggestion, does not himself believe it to be true. He knows it to be not true, yet he makes a suggestion of the fact as if it were true. In misrepresentation, on the other hand, the person making misrepresentation believes it to be true. But the law declares it to be misrepresentation on the basis of information which he had and what he believed to be true was not true. Therefore, the representation made by him becomes a misrepresentation as it is a statement which is found to be untrue. Fraud is committed if a person actively conceals a fact, who either knows about the fact or believes in the existence of the fact. The concealment must be active. It is here that mere silence has been explained in the Exception which would affect the decision of a person who enters into a contract to be not fraud unless the circumstances are such that it becomes his duty to speak. His silence itself may amount to speech. A person may make a promise without having any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Emphasis supplied) 46. An application Under Section 33A of the Act is not a civil suit. The provisions of Order VI Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as such, is not applicable to proceedings under the Act. Does it mean that the law as to pleadings is not to apply at all to proceedings under the Act or will it be more correct to say that the law as to pleadings will apply but without its full vigor. We would think the latter would be the correct position in law. While the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure may not apply the salutary principles embodied would apply. This is for the reason that the purpose of pleading, be it in a civil suit or other proceeding, is to allow the opposite party to meet the case of his opponent to ready the evidence to be adduced and marshal the law in support of its case. 47. In Management of Hindustan Steel Limited v. Workmen and Ors. AIR 1973 SC 878, the case arose Under Section 25-FFF of the Act thereof and the notice issued under the provision was impugned as being conditional. This is what this Court found in regard to the contention about the vagueness of the plea: 13. In our view, Shri Setalvad was fully justified in submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leading it. Since a charge of victimisation is a serious matter reflecting, to a degree, upon the subjective attitude of the employer evidenced by acts and conduct, these have to be established by safe and sure evidence. Mere allegations, vague suggestions and insinuations are not enough. All particulars of the charge brought out, if believed, must be weighed by the Tribunal and a conclusion should be reached on a totality of the evidence produced. 49. In regard to a case based on acquiescence, the High Court of Madras has also spoken of the need for specific plea [See (1991), Labour and Industrial Cases, Page 40]. 50. Applying the principles of law to the facts of our case, we would think that there is no sufficient pleading in regard to fraud. The allegation as to undue influence is totally without any basis in the pleading. 51. The VSS, if availed of by an employee voluntarily, amounts to a contract. This Court, in Bank of India and Ors. v. O.P. Swarnakar and Ors. (2003) 2 SCC 721, was dealing with the case of voluntary retirement scheme floated by the bank. A question arose as to whether the scheme was an offer or an invitation to treat. After elaborate consideration o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat it is not a fact that he had given the application in the Scheme out of his own without any compulsion or force. So also the other applicants. AW2 is one Chirtamani Patra. He joined from 04.05.1987 and till 13.06.2000, he worked continuously. The Appellants gave them the impression that their services will be regularized and, at first instance, their signature was taken on a blank paper and subsequently in a form. Subsequently, he could know that the form was meant for VSS. Prior to taking signatures in the VSS form, no intimation or no notice was given regarding the VSS. He had drawn attention to the authorities regarding taking of his signatures in the VSS application form. The signatures were obtained at the Divisional level . In the cross-examination, he, inter alia, stated that more than 300 persons were engaged as NMR at that time. He had no knowledge about the VSS prior to his refusal of employment. He denied that the VSS was sufficiently published and he submitted his application for VSS. He also stated that it was not a fact that signatures of the applicants were not taken forcibly or fraudulently. He admits to have received Rs. 5,500/- towards hydro allowance an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re marked with objection. It is stated in Indrawati, the Management implemented the VSS and 690 persons were given VSS in December, 1999. Exhibit 'A/I' is the Notification extending the VSS till 24.06.2000. Exhibit 'A/II' is the Notification extending the VSS till 01.03.2001. Discussion was made with Rengali Power Projects Workers Union before implementing the VSS on 10.04.2000 AND 14/15.04.2000. The President had given the agenda for discussion vide Exhibit 'F' including VRS for NMR employees. Finally, discussion was held on 20.05.2000 as per Exhibit 'G' (marked with objection). The Union was aware of the implementation of the VSS prior to the implementation. The witnesses have signed in Exhibit 'E Series'. Exhibit 'H' is the guideline issued by the Corporate Office. The suggestion that signatures of the applicants have been taken forcibly, has been denied. An amount of Rs. 5,500/- paid to the applicants as ex gratia towards the enhanced medical allowance and hydro allowance. In the cross-examination, the witness would state, inter alia, as follows: The Executive Engineer is the appointing authority so far as NMR workers were c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... At present, he cannot say as to from which date applicants started receiving application forms. He has not assisted the applicants in filing the application form. He can identify witnesses who have signed the application form of the applicants. Then, he says, he cannot say who is Sahdev Raut, in what capacity he had signed. Below the signature of the witnesses, their designation and date have not been given. He has no knowledge about the pendency of the case in the Supreme Court. He has no knowledge about the withdrawal of the application by AW1. He says, it is not a fact that the signatures of the applicants were taken forcibly giving impression that their services will be regularized. (Emphasis supplied) THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 54. The documentary evidence, which is produced by the applicants, is as follows: a. The OER (Transfer of Undertaking, Assets, Liabilities, Proceedings and Personnel) Scheme Rules, 1996; b. The Order passed by the High Court in O.J.C. No. 2420 of 1989, which we have already adverted to; c. The letter written by the first applicant dated 01.06.2000, which we have already extracted; d. The Gazette Notification dated 01.04.1996 regardi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... larly the SDO and the Executive Engineer of OHPC have never recommended for reducing the staff strength. Admittedly Voluntary Separation Scheme was not published widely for the information of NMRs and therefore it cannot be exported that the NMRs signed the Voluntary Separation Scheme applications knowing its content and consequences. On a reference to Ext. 3 it is clear that A.W. 1 though submitted application for Voluntary Separation Scheme either under pressure or under a wrong notion he has withdrawn the same on 1.6.2000 but the application of Sri Sahoo was not returned back and he was given the Voluntary Separation Scheme. Therefore I am of the considered view that the Voluntary Separation Scheme was not the choice of the complainants but it was thrust upon the complainants and therefore amounts to refused of employment to the guise of Voluntary Separation Scheme. 10. In view of the discussions made above, the action of the management opposite parties in implementing the Voluntary Separation Scheme forcibly or by misrepresentation is illegal and unjustified. The complainants are entitled to be reinstated in service and are deemed to be continuing in service from the date of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to direct the opposite parties to regularize the services of the N.M.R. employees and to pay them emoluments equal to those of regular employees discharging the same nature of work. We need not traverse the legal ground as the same has been duly taken note of in a recent decision of this Court in Balaram Sahu v. State of Orissa, 74(1992) CLT 367 and following what was stated in that judgment the facts of the two cases being similar. We direct regularization of those members of the union who have served continuously for a period of five years by today. The opposite parties shall find out with reference to Annexure-7 or any other document available to them as to which of the members of the Petitioner-union have completed five years of continuous service by today. It may be pointed out here that in Annexure-7, details have been given about 281 (though the last serial number is 280 in Annexure-7, Shri Das states that sl. No. 114 was mentioned twice by mistake) persons. Learned Counsel states that details of 85 workmen represented by the Petitioner-union who have been transferred to different divisions could not be made available to the court. ... (Emphasis supplied) 60. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1992 (date of judgment) were entitled to regularization as the High Court had directed regularization. They had indeed acquired a legal right. This was undoubtedly subject to the lis pending in this Court. A period of five years continuous service prior to 28.10.1992 would mean those employees who were members of the writ Petitioners' union before the High Court in O.J.C. No. 2420 of 1989, would be employees who were appointed on or before 27.10.1987. In fact, going by the deposition of applicants, it would appear that AW1 claimed to be working since 1988. This means AW1 apparently was not one who was covered by the direction for regularization by the High Court as he was working from 03.06.1988. He would complete five years only by 02.06.1993. Though, in the application, there is reference to O.J.C. No. 1527 of 1991, in his deposition, he refers only to O.J.C. No. 2420 of 1989. No doubt, as far as AW2 to AW4, going by the dates given, which we have already indicated, if they had worked continuously from the dates, they would be covered by the order of the High Court for regularization. We are considering the VSS which was introduced during the pendency of the litigation before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hey will not be in a position to establish that they have not received the payments. They would brush aside the payments on the basis that they were paid some amounts which they thought they were entitled to on the basis that they were being regularized. A sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- plus other benefits was paid to all the applicants. This amount happens to be also the amount which was contemplated under the VSS. 71. None of the applicants have a case that the signatures in the applications have not been appended by them. They do not appear to have a case about the witnesses as such except as we have noticed in the evidence. It may be true that one applicant out of the 90 has written a letter purporting to withdraw. It is noteworthy that other 89 applicants had not made any application seeking to withdraw. In the application filed by one worker (First Applicant), which we have extracted, he would state that he was threatened and coerced and, being afraid, he was made to sign the application for VSS against his wish. He never intended to take the VSS and he was told that he would be forced to dire striats. No doubt, his application is dated 01.06.2000, which is the very next date of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mind also the need to be not far too strict, en masse signatures of workers were taken on certain papers and by showing undue influence. The pleas of fraud and undue influence are distinct and separate. It will be noticed that the case of coercion and threat does not make its appearance in the pleading. 73. Coming to the oral evidence, AW1, as noticed by us, states that he and other applicants were given to understand that their services will be regularised and signatures were taken on the VSS form. He further says that his signatures and that of the other applicants were taken by Appellants forcibly giving an impression that their services will be regularised. As has been noticed by us, there is no case of force which is used in paragraph-9 of the application, which constitutes the sole pleading. 74. Passing in to AW2, he would say that the Appellants gave them an impression that their services would be regularised and, at the first instance, their signature was taken on a blank paper and subsequently on a form. Subsequently, he came to know that it is meant for the Scheme and he drew attention of the authorities (There is no mention about before whom he ventilated his objec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... brought on record. 78. As against this, the Appellants have produced a wealth of documentary evidence before the Labour Court. Exhibits 'A' to 'K' were produced. They included the applications which were signed by the applicants and two witnesses; the VSS Scheme itself; the document evidencing the authorisation of payments of the amounts under the VSS Scheme; the Charter of Demand before the Management for discussion-Exhibit 'F'. The Minutes of the Discussion of the meeting which was held on 20.05.2000. The Minutes would indicate that regularisation of 43 NMR workers out of total of 343 was to be considered in terms of the Scheme for regularisation of the NMR workers after the VSS/VRS Scheme, is implemented in respect of 300 workers. This is item No. 1. The next item No. 2 dealt with enhanced amount of VSS for NMR employees. After a detailed discussion, it was mutually decided that this was not possible. 79. Item Nos. 3 and 4 would show that it was decided that 43 NMR employees will be regularised on the basis of skill and qualification, seniority in terms of regularisation of NMR workers. 80. Though there was a direction by the High Court to direct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y newspaper. It is stated that it is not published in any newspaper for the information of the general public. He also does say that it is not notified in the Gazette either by the Government or by the Corporation. The second witness for the Appellants also states that implementation was notified on the Office Notice Board. It was made in English and the NMRs were not conversant with English. Nothing was published in Oriya. We have also undoubtedly taken note of the deposition of AW1 to AW4 which appears to project the case of non-publication of the Scheme. In this regard, we must notice the following features: 1. The applicants themselves lay store by the judgment of the High Court in the earlier Writ Petition O.J.C. No. 2420 of 1989. Therein, the Petitioner was the Rengali Power Projects Workers' Union. 2. Apparently, the applicants claimed to be members of the said Union. AW1, in fact, in his deposition, also refers to the order passed in O.J.C. No. 2420 of 1989 and that the Appellants did not comply with the direction of the High Court and appeal is pending in this Court. Therefore, applicants must be understood as being members of the Union. They must also be treated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finding. The pleading and the evidence, does not support in the least, such a finding. On the other hand, the weight of evidence should have been borne in mind by the Labour Court as completely eliminating the possibility. It is surprising that the Labour Court should find solace in the letter written by the first applicant dated 01.06.2000 to find that he submitted the application either under pressure or under wrong notion. In fact, the very concept of wrong notion is missing in the letter dated 01.06.2000(See paragraph 17 for the letter). The Labour Court appears to be oblivious also to the fact that there is only one such letter. Even taking it at its face value, there is no letter written by any of the other 89 applicants. The Labour Court also lost sight of the fact that the applicants were favoured with amounts under the Scheme. By way of cheque the amounts stood credited in their accounts. The application is moved only after several months of receiving the benefits. 85. We are, therefore, of the clear view that no case was made out before the Labour Court for invoking Section 33A read with Section 33 of the Act. In the case of Writ of Certiorari, no doubt, the Court also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
