Case Note & Summary
The case involves a group of writ petitions filed by former employees of National Organic Chemicals Ltd. (NOCIL) against Relene Petrochemicals Ltd. (now Reliance Corporate IT Park Ltd.) before the Bombay High Court. The dispute originated from the closure of NOCIL's PCD unit in 2002-2003. After State Government granted permission under Section 25O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Industrial Tribunal set aside the closure permission. A tripartite MOU was executed on 11 September 2004 between NOCIL, unions, and the respondent for the takeover of the PCD unit. Under the MOU, NOCIL employees were offered VRS under Plan A and Plan B, and then the respondent would offer fresh employment subject to medical fitness and training. The petitioners opted for VRS Plan A, but were found medically unfit for fresh employment with the respondent. Consequently, they received VRS Plan B benefits totaling Rs.4.5 lakhs. A subsequent conciliation settlement dated 18 June 2005 under Section 12(3) read with 18(3) of the ID Act was signed between the recognized union and the respondent, providing a full and final increase of Rs.2.34 lakhs per workman to bring the total to Rs.6 lakhs, minus amounts already received, thereby settling all claims of ex-employees, including those medically unfit or dismissed. The petitioners accepted this amount in July 2005. In 2006, the respondent and the union agreed to shift the PCD unit and offered VRS to unwilling workmen. In 2008, the petitioners and other ex-employees raised industrial disputes claiming additional payments on par with the 2006 VRS. These disputes were referred to the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal, by its common award dated 24 November 2011, rejected the references on the grounds that: (a) the references were not maintainable for those who were found medically unfit and never became employees of the respondent; (b) references were not maintainable for dismissed workmen who had accepted the conciliation settlement; (c) all claims were finally satisfied by the 18 June 2005 settlement; and (d) the conciliation settlement superseded the prior assurance given in a letter dated 14 January 2005. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, challenging the Tribunal's award. The High Court heard the matters and reserved judgment on 6 September 2012. The judgment pronounced on 12 September 2012 is not fully available in the provided text, leaving the final decision and reasoning unknown.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Tribunal correctly held that the references of ex-employees of NOCIL were not maintainable and that their claims were finally settled by the conciliation settlement dated 18 June 2005.
Case Details
2012 LawText (BOM) (09) 27
Writ Petition No. 4810 of 2012 and connected petitions
A.D. Kango, Suresh M. Sabrad, D.R. Patekar, Yuwraj D. Patil for petitioners; Chander Uday Singh, Kiran S. Bapat, Malanie D'souza for respondents
Gajanan Gangaram Patil and others
M/s. Relene Petrochemicals Ltd. (M/s. Reliance Corporate IT Park Ltd.)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the common award of the Industrial Tribunal which rejected the references of ex-employees seeking additional voluntary retirement scheme (VRS) benefits.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to set aside the Industrial Tribunal's award dated 24 November 2011 and claimed additional payments on par with the VRS given under the settlement dated 5 December 2006.
Filing Reason
The Industrial Tribunal held that the references were not maintainable as the petitioners were either medically unfit ex-employees who never became employees of the respondent, or dismissed workmen who had accepted the conciliation settlement dated 18 June 2005, and that all claims stood finally settled by that settlement which superseded prior assurances.
Previous Decisions
Industrial Tribunal common award dated 24 November 2011 in Reference (IT) No. 59 of 2009 and similar references, rejecting the claims.
Issues
Whether the Industrial Tribunal correctly held that the references of ex-employees of NOCIL were not maintainable?
Whether the conciliation settlement dated 18 June 2005 under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 finally settled all claims of the petitioners?
Judgment Excerpts
On 18 June, 2005, a conciliation Settlement signed under Section 12(3) read with 18(3) by which the recognised union and company agreed that a full and final increase of Rs. 2.34 lac per workman would be paid over and above VRS Plan A and VRS Plan B given by NOCIL.
On 24 November, 2011, the Industrial Tribunal's common Award in similar class of cases rejected the Reference on the grounds that (a) the references were not maintainable in the cases of those exemployees of NOCIL who were found medically unfit and thereby never became employees of the Respondent Company; (b) the references were not maintainable in the cases of those dismissed workmen like the Petitioner who had accepted payments under the Conciliation Settlement dated 18.6.2005; ( c ) all claims of these workmen stood finally satisfied by the said Settlement dated 18.6.2005 and they had no subsisting dispute thereafter and (d) the Conciliation Settlement dated 18.6.2005 clearly superseded the prior assurance contained in the letter dated 14.1.2005.
Procedural History
Closure of NOCIL's PCD unit in 2002; closure permission granted under Section 25O ID Act on 20 March 2003, set aside and then regranted; Industrial Tribunal set aside closure permission on 31 January 2004; tripartite MOU on 11 September 2004; petitioners took VRS Plan A on 23 September 2004, found medically unfit, received VRS Plan B; early separation plan declared on 4 January 2005; conciliation settlement under Section 12(3)/18(3) ID Act on 18 June 2005; petitioners received Rs.2.34 lakhs on 13 July 2005; MOU on 15 November 2006 and settlement on 5 December 2006 for shifting unit and VRS; petitioners raised industrial disputes in 2008; references made; Statement of Claims filed on 22 June 2010; evidence on 29 January 2011; Industrial Tribunal common award rejecting references on 24 November 2011; writ petitions filed in 2012.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 25O, 12(3), 18(3), 2(k), 2(p), 2(s), 18
