Allowed

B.Rukmangadhara Rao v. Southern Pesticides Corporation Ltd.

Telangana HC24 Jan 2014WP/5227/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed writ petitions by former temporary employees of Southern Pesticides Corporation Limited, holding that their service should be computed for terminal benefits under the Voluntary Separation Scheme and granting Leave Travel Concession benefits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners entitled to computation of temporary service for terminal benefits and payment of Leave Travel Concession for the block period 1998-2001.

B.Rukmangadhara Rao Vs Southern Pesticides… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION NOS. 5227 OF 2002 & 6818 OF 2003

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

These two Writ Petitions are disposed of through this common order. As many as 12 former employees of M/s Southern Pesticides Corporation Limited (‘SPEC’, for short), moved a Writ of Mandamus in W.P.No. 6818 of 2003, seeking for a Writ of Mandamus to include the services rendered by the petitioners as temporary employees of SPEC for computing the benefits payable to them when they chose Voluntary Separation Scheme (‘VSS’ for short) and for a declaration of the release of Leave Travel Concession for the block period of 19982001. Two of the employees of SPEC filed Writ Petition No. 5227 of 2002 seeking for inclusion of their temporary service as Typist for the purpose of computing benefits payable to them under VSS.

¶5

It would appear that SPEC was started by the Government of India in furtherance of National Malaria Eradication Programme under the directions of WHO. The

¶6

Company was in profit from 1982 till 1997 once production commenced in the Company. Unfortunately, WHO ordered the stoppage of production of the chemicals produced by SPEC on the ground that they are no more useful since the mosquitoes have become immune to the chemical. Government of India in its turn banned the production of these chemicals. It also would appear that SPEC could not take steps to produce new variety of pesticides and chemicals for the Malaria Eradication Programme owing to financial constrains and administrative reasons. SPEC was then referred to BIFR for the smooth continuation of the Company.

¶7

It also would appear that BIFR, after examination of the case, made two suggestions viz., (1) Running of SPEC on cooperative basis and (2) selling SPEC to an interested party, who could take over the company. Unfortunately, both the suggestions could not be adopted for various reasons. Hence, VSS was contemplated by SPEC with the support of the Government of India. The VSS came into force with effect from 11.2.2002. Two modes of scheme were introduced viz., the Gujarat Model and the Department of Heavy Industries (DHI) pattern. The scheme was applicable in terms of Office Order in

¶8

reference No. E.IV-37/M&S (SPEC) dated 11.2.2002 as follows:

¶9

“ The scheme will be applicable to the permanent employees, Badli Workers, Work Charged Established and Temporary Workers but not to the Casual Workers.”

¶10

The petitioners opted for the Scheme. The learned counsel for the petitioners however, pointed out that the petitioners in fact had no alternative and had to opt out for the Scheme. The two petitioners in W.P.No. 5227 of 2002 were appointed as temporary typists after due selection. The twelve petitioners in W.P.No. 6818 of 2003 were temporarily appointed as unskilled labour. All of them were claimed to have been appointed after due selection process. It is also the contention of the leaned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners in both the cases had put in between 5 years to 14 years in SPEC.

¶11

On 28.2.2002, the petitioners were paid amount due to them under the VSS. While doing so, the temporary service rendered by the petitioners had not been computed in working out the compensation towards the terminal benefits. The petitioners, consequently, laid these Writ

¶12

Petitions seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not computing the temporary period of service of the petitioners for the purpose of computing the compensation as bad and for a direction to include the said period of temporary period also for the purpose of computing the compensation. The petitioners in W.P.No. 6818 of 2003 also seeks for the relief relating to LTC, which shall be addressed a little later.

¶13

So far as the claim of the petitioners is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the Scheme as contemplated would apply to permanent employees, badli workers, work charged established and temporary workers. He contended that as the petitioners were temporary employees, they are covered by the Scheme. He further submitted that there is no provision in the Scheme that the period of service rendered as temporary employees is to be excluded in computing the length of service of the employees. He referred to proforma receipt submitted by one of the petitioners. As already pointed out, the petitioners were not paid compensation for the period of service rendered by them as temporary employees. The representation of the petitioners to the authorities on 19.2.2002 was in fact

¶14

recommended by the Personal Manager (as General Manager) in-charge to the Managing Director of SPEC for consideration on humanitarian grounds. However, compensation was paid without computing the period of service rendered by the petitioners as temporary employees.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that albeit the petitioners are temporary employees, the Scheme was applicable to the temporary employees as well, so much so the period of service rendered by the petitioners, as temporary workers is liable to be included in the computation of total length of service of the petitioners. Where the Scheme is very specific that it is applicable to temporary workers also as quoted in this order, I am in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Scheme is applicable to the temporary workers. The petitioners, consequently, shall be entitled to computation for the period of service rendered by them as temporary workers to calculate the amounts of compensation payable to the petitioners under the VSS. The petitioners shall be entitled to the relief sought for by them accordingly.

¶16

As already pointed out, the petitioners in W.P.No. 6818 of 2003 sought for the additional relief regarding the payment of LTC. Clause 3.6 of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Management of SPEC and the Employees Union speaks about the LTC benefit also to the employees. The claim of the petitioners in W.P.No. 6818 of 2003 that they are entitled to LTC benefit for the block period 1998-2001 has not been refuted by any of the respondents by filing any counter. In both the Writ Petitions, initially, respondents 1 and 2 alone were arrayed. In W.P.No. 6818 of 2003, the Official Liquidator was the third respondent. He was arrayed as third respondent in the earlier Writ Petition later. The Union of India was added as 4^th respondent in both the cases subsequent to the filing of the Writ Petitions. Thus the Union of India as well as the Official Liquidator are also respondents in these Writ Petitions. However, none of the respondents chose to file any counter. It simply be assumed that the contention of the petitioners either for computation of their period of service as temporary employees and also the claim of the petitioners in the second writ petition for payment of benefit under the LTC

¶17

scheme are permissible from the fact that the counters are not filed. At any rate, in view of the very Scheme, the petitioners are entitled for computation of period of service as temporary employees also for calculating the terminal benefits under the VSS.

¶18

Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are allowed. The petitioners in both the Writ Petitions are entitled to calculation of the temporary service rendered by them as qualifying service for the purpose of calculating total length of service for payment of terminal benefits. The 4^th respondent shall re-calculate the terminal benefits of the petitioners accordingly and shall pay the same within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petitioners 1 to 12 in W.P.No. 6818 of 2003 are also entitled to payment of LTC benefit for the block period of 1998-2001. They shall be accordingly compensated along with other terminal benefits, again by paying the same within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any in these Writ Petitions, shall also stand closed.

¶19

DR.JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR

¶20

DATE: 24.01.2014 KA

B.Rukmangadhara Rao v. Southern Pesticides Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Rukmangadhara Rao v. Southern Pesticides Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Belledla Jayapal Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.Siddaiah Vs Sri Joseph

The Depot Manager, Vs M.B.Krishnaiah

Abdul Samad, Vs Ediga Jayamma

K. China Satyanarayana Vs Southern Pesticides Corporation Ltd., Govt. of India

Kongali Mopataiah Vs The State of A.P.