Back
2025 Supreme(Guj) 1416
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J.
Petrofils Ex-Employees Action Committee - Appellant
Versus
The Liquidator, Petrofils Co-Operative Ltd. & Anr. - Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 6927 Of 2025
Decided On : 24-06-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Party In Person
For the Respondent: Mrs Krishna G Rawal
The court affirmed that significant delays in challenging voluntary schemes, particularly when the challenges arise years later without sufficient justification, cannot be excused.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Directive Principles of State Policy - Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS) - Petitioners sought to challenge VSS provisions claiming discrimination and delay in payments. Petition not entertained due to unreasonable delay of 25 years from scheme acceptance, with no sufficient cause. (Paras 4.1, 5.1, 5.2, 6.5)
(B) The court restated principles on condonation of delay, emphasizing that delay should not be excused merely as a matter of generosity and should adhere to public policy. (Paras 6.2, 6.4)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged the terms of a VSS scheme from 2000, claiming lack of parity and late payments, despite having accepted the scheme and submitted claims to the official liquidator in 2017. Their primary assertion was that the scheme, allowing for 45 days of emoluments, was detrimental compared to similar schemes elsewhere offering 60 days.
Findings of Court:
The court found the petitioners' delay and laches unexcusable, given their previous acceptance of the scheme and subsequent lengthy inaction.
Issues: The primary issues were whether the petitioners could challenge a scheme they had voluntarily accepted 25 years prior and whether sufficient cause existed for the condonation of the 8-year delay since the liquidator's order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the extremely lengthy delay, especially in light of the previous acceptance of the VSS and non-challenging of the liquidator's order, did not justify reopening the matter.
Result: Petition rejected.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition filed for mandamus and compensation relief. (Para 1) |
| 2. grievance against vss scheme clauses. (Para 3) |
| 3. previous petitions and delays are significant. (Para 4) |
| 4. delay in questioning vss scheme impacts validity. (Para 5) |
| 5. delay must be justified; must adhere to limitation principles. (Para 6) |
| 6. locus standi and procedural requirements questioned. (Para 7) |
| 7. petition rejected due to unexplained delay. (Para 8) |
ORDER :
NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J.
1. Heard party-in-Person Mr.Ramesh Jaicharan Sharma, Acting President of Petrofils Ex-Employees Action Committee. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:-
“(A) Your Lordship be pleased to admit and allow this petition.
(B) Your Lordship be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring that, the vss given on the basis of OM dated 5-5-2000 annexure K is violating the article 14 and also against the directive principle of state policy part IV of Indian Constitution and also against the policy of Parity and declare that we the petitioners, ex-employees are entitle for the difference of amount of VSS compensation with 12% interest p.a. from the date of entitlement till the actual payment will be made as per the 60 days or 35/25 days scheme, whichever is beneficial to individual employee.
(C) Your Lordship be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring that, model standing order dated 9-03-1995 annexure H is wrongly considered and applied and wrongly deprived to those employees who appointed/ joined as trainees/GETs/Consolidated and wrongly deprived them for the benefit of training period for gratuity and VSS compensation. And declare that trainees/GETs/Consolidated are entitle for gratuity and VSS compensation for their training period with 12% interest p.a. from the date of entitlement till the actual payment will be made.
(D) Your Lordship be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring that para 4 of the circular dated 6-11-2001 annexure V is totally unjust, unfair and illegal and hence, respondent have not considered us for the Ex-gratia of 50% as wage revision from 1-1-1997 was not carried out so, we the petitioners, ex-employees those who are not benefited for wage revision from 1-1- 1997 are entitle for the 50% ex-gratia after considering the above pray of B and C with 12% interest p.a. from the date of entitlement till the date of actual payment will be made.
(E) Your Lordship be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring that, as the payment of VSS amount was paid late about 2.5 months so we the petitioners, all the ex- employees are entitled for the interest at the rate of 12% p.a for the said delayed period.
(F) To grant any such other and further relieves as this Hon'ble court deems just and proper in facts and circumstances of the case.
(G) To award cost of this petition.”
3. It would appear that the grievance of the petitioner is with regard to certain clauses in a scheme floated by the Petrofils Co-operative Limited for voluntary separation of its employees from the organization. It appears that the said scheme had been promulgated on 18.12.2000. It also appears that the petitioner and the employees of the Co-operative Limited whose cause the petitioner is seeking to espouse, have all accepted the scheme in question and have shown their desire to opt for the VSS scheme by making application before the cut off date.
3.1. The grievance which is being made today is with regard to Clause-3(i)(A) of the scheme in question inter alia on the ground that the scheme was detrimental to the interest of the employees more particularly the submission being that other employees of other organizations where such scheme had been implemented had
