Economic decisions involving complex factors are not subject to judicial interference unless violative of constitutional or legal limits, and employees are bound by decisions not contrary to law.

( 1 ) RULE. WITH the Consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is taken up for final disposal.

( 2 ) THE petitioners are officers and employees working in different capacities at different centres of hindustan Vegitable Oils Corporation Limited respondent no. 2. The performance of respondent no. 2 apparently started suffering from 1991 onwards and in 1996 the case of respondent no. 2 was REFERRED TO to disinvestment Commission. The Disinvestment Commission submitted its report and the case of respondent no. 2 corporation was also REFERRED TO to Roard For Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for Short the BIFR) under section 15 (1) of the Sick Industrial Companies ( Special provisions) Act,. 1985 (for short the said SICA) in december, 1999. The BIFR declared respondent no. 2 corporation as a sick industrial company in terms of the provisions of Section 3 (1) (o) of the said Act. The petitioner and other officers of the respondent no. 2 corporation also moved the BIFR to be impleaded as party and sought directions for revival of respondent no. 2. Certain directions were passed by the BIFR.

( 3 ) THE petitioner is Aggrieved by the order dated 6. 11. 2000 issued by the Government of India introducing a Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS) for the employees of respondent no. 2. The scheme was kept open for a period of 3 months and it was envisaged in the said order that the employees who failed to apply under the scheme would be eligible only for retrenchment under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. A representation was made by the petitioners for keeping in abeyance the said scheme till the BIFR considers the issue or in the alternative pay wages/compensation in terms of the directions of the Supreme Court relating to the Subzi Mandi unit of respondent no. 2.

( 4 ) THE petitioner has ultimately filed the present petition seeking the following relief :-

"a) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondent to extend the proposed voluntary Separation Scheme dated 6. 11. 2000 vide. Notification no. F. 508/99 HVOC till the final decision is taken by the BIFR for the purposes of revival/rehabilitation of HVOC and b)issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the Respondent authorities to formulate a golden hand Shake Scheme based on the package as ordered by the Hon ble. Supreme Court in I. A. No. 30 in Writ petition No. 4677/1985 dated 31. 12. 96 on the revised wages/salaries"

( 5 ) MR. RAJIV Dutta, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the basis of the scheme of voluntary separation as also the short period within which the application was sought from the employees is arbitrary and Illegal. The said scheme was sought to be implemented under the threat of closure. The learned senior counsel contends that the benefits to be extended to the employees cannot be decided in isolation and that the employees would be entitled for their dues and claims w. e. f. 1. 1. 97.

( 6 ) THUS the contention is that the revision of the pay scale having been given to the other public sector enterprises w. e. f. 1. 1. 97 should also be made applicable to respondent no. 2 corporation. Mr. Dutta, learned senior counsel, has contended that even the disinvestment Commission took note of the substantial assets of respondent no. 2 and observed as under :-

"the estimate value of the other freehold real estates owned by hvocl. Uits (as per valuation performed by Central Bureau of direct Taxes (CBDT) in November, 1996) is quite substantial. Hence, the net, inflow to Government by closing down all the units by liquidating their assets and selling the breakfast foods unit after setting all the claims and retirement benefits would still be high.

( 7 ) LEARNED senior counsel while contending, that the purport of the Scheme is in fact to scuttle the proceedings before the BIFR REFERRED TO to the note t