2023 Supreme(Del) 1336

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, JJ.
Government of India Press Workers Association & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Central Administrative Tribunal & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 1534 of 2021, CM Appls. 37848 of 2022 & 12346 of 2023 and W.P.(C) 1535 of 2021, CM Appl. 12284 of 2023 and W.P.(C) 1537 of 2021 and W.P.(C) 5668 of 2023 & CM Appl. 22178 of 2023
Decided On : 31-07-2023

A policy decision taken by the government after consideration of relevant factors, including modernisation of the Presses as per the new technology available, and reduction in expenditure, cannot be contested.

Headnote:

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 9A, 25O - CLOSURE OF GOVERNMENT OF INDIA PRESSES - RATIONALISATION/MERGER/MODERNISATION - TRANSFERABILITY OF EMPLOYEES - ALL INDIA TRANSFER LIABILITY - PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL - POLICY DECISION - JUDICIAL REVIEW - WRIT PETITION. The Union Cabinet's decision to merge 17 Government of India Presses into five Presses situated in Delhi, Nashik and Kolkata, and redeploy the members of the petitioner associations into the said five Government of India Presses, cannot be contested. It is a policy decision taken by the government after consideration of relevant factors, including modernisation of the Presses as per the new technology available, and reduction in expenditure. The decision of the Union Cabinet to merge 17 Government of India Presses into five Government of India Presses, cannot be contested. It is a policy decision taken by the government after consideration of relevant factors, including modernisation of the Presses as per the new technology available, and reduction in expenditure. The decision having been implemented/come into effect, it is now too late in the day for this Court to interfere with the impugned decision. The plea that the impugned decision is in violation of Section 9A and 25O of the ID Act is rejected. Section 9A of the ID Act is not applicable to the present case, as the employees of the Government of India Presses are governed by the provisions of the rules as stipulated in the proviso to Section 9A. Section 25-O of the ID Act is not applicable as there is neither any retrenchment nor any lay-off. The employment of the members of the petitioner Associations has not been terminated, but is secure with the same service conditions. The plea that the impugned action of the respondents is in violation of Section 25-O of the ID Act is rejected. Section 25-O of the ID Act is not applicable as there is neither any retrenchment nor any lay-off. The employment of the members of the petitioner Associations has not been terminated, but is secure with the same service conditions.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, representing various Government of India Presses located in Coimbatore, Mysore, and Shimla, challenged the decision of the Union Cabinet to merge 17 Government of India Presses into five Presses situated in Delhi, Nashik, and Kolkata. The petitioners contended that the decision was arbitrary, illegal, and violative of their fundamental rights, including the right to livelihood and the right to work in their chosen field. They also argued that the merger would result in their redeployment to far-off places, causing hardship to their families and affecting their children's education and the health of their family members.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the decision of the Union Cabinet to merge 17 Government of India Presses into five Presses was a policy decision taken by the government after consideration of relevant factors, including modernisation of the Presses as per the new technology available, and reduction in expenditure. The Court further held that the decision having been implemented/come into effect, it was too late in the day for the Court to interfere with the impugned decision. The Court also rejected the petitioners' plea that the impugned decision was in violation of Section 9A and 25O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, holding that Section 9A was not applicable as the employees of the Government of India Presses were governed by the provisions of the rules as stipulated in the proviso to Section 9A, and that Section 25-O was not applicable as there was neither any retrenchment nor any lay-off.

Issues: 1. Whether the decision of the Union Cabinet to merge 17 Government of India Presses into five Presses was a policy decision taken by the government after consideration of relevant factors, including modernisation of the Presses as per the new technology available, and reduction in expenditure? 2. Whether the decision having been implemented/come into effect, it was too late in the day for the Court to interfere with the impugned decision? 3. Whether the impugned decision was in violation of Section 9A and 25O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. A policy decision taken by the government after consideration of relevant factors, including modernisation of the Presses as per the new technology available, and reduction in expenditure, cannot be contested. 2. Once a decision has been implemented/come into effect, it is too late in the day for the Court to interfere with the impugned decision. 3. Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is not applicable to employees of the Government of India Presses who are governed by the provisions of the rules as stipulated in the proviso to Section 9A. 4. Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is not applicable where there is neither any retrenchment nor any lay-off.

Final Decision: The petitions were dismissed, except to the extent that the Court directed the respondents to consider the case of one of the petitioners, whose son was suffering from an incurable Muscular Dystrophy Disease, as a special case on humanitarian grounds, and redeploy him within the State of Tamil Nadu so that he could continue with the treatment of his son.