The central legal point established is the importance of providing an opportunity for the petitioner Union to be heard before making a decision, and the failure of the respondent No. 6 to fulfill the terms and conditions of the MoU and Agreement.

JUDGMENT :

Nelson Sailo, J.

Heard Mr. B.D. Das, the learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. R. Deka for the petitioner Union. Also heard Dr. B. Ahmed, the learned Standing Counsel for the Industries and Commerce Department and also Ms. M. Dutta, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 7.

2. This is a second round writ petition filed by the Assam Polytex Ltd. Employees Union which is represented by its General Secretary. The petitioner Union earlier approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 3354/2013, praying for a direction to the respondent authorities to grant its members the benefit of Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS). The writ petition was disposed of vide Order dated 29.04.2014.

3. The facts of the case in brief is that the petitioner-Union i.e., Assam Polytex Limited Employees' Union comprises of about 378 members, who are Grade-III and Grade-IV employees in the Assam Polytex Ltd. (respondent No. 5). The Union is registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1976 under registration No. TUC/CR/No. 44/87. The respondent No. 5 is a Government of Assam undertaking incorporated in the year 1982 which started its production in 1985-86. The members of the petitioner-Union were appointed by the respondent No.5 in various capacities from 1986 onwards. Ever since their appointments, according to the petitioner-Union, they were regularly serving under the respondent No. 5. However, the production of the respondent No. 5 abruptly came to a stop in the month of March, 1993 due to various reasons thereby, rendering the members of the petitioner-Union jobless and without salaries and allowances since then. The Government of Assam in terms of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 03.01.1994 took a decision to allow a private company viz; M/s Assam Yarn Suppliers (respondent No.6) to run the respondent No.5. However, respondent No.6 could not revive the respondent No.5 and did not even engage the members of the petitioner-union contrary to the Memorandum of Understanding.

4. On 04.04.2001, the Government of Assam by an agreement allowed respondent No.6 to run the respondent No.5 by providing 100% share to it and it was further provided that the employees of the respondent No.5 i.e. the members of the petitioner-Union would be employed in a phase manner. However, the said private company did not engage the members of the petitioner-Union nor did it take any measure to run the company. In the year 2006, the Govt. of Assam issued the Notification dated 11.12.2006 wherein, a decision was taken for closure of 15 PSUs which were no longer functioning. The Government of Assam implemented the VRS to the employees of those PSUs by the Notification dated 15.02.2006 and released the regular employees of those PSUs. Although the members of the petitioner-Union belonged to the same category/class, the respondent authorities did not take any decision to extend the benefits of VRS to them or paid them their salaries and allowances. The case of the petitioner is that the Assistant Manager (P&A) of the respondent No. 5 on 17.01.2003 submitted a proposal before the respondent No. 1 for implementation of VRS to the employees of the respondent No.5 company including the members of the petitioner-Union, but the same has not been implemented. The representation filed by the petitioner-Union for extension of the benefit of VRS to its members did not receive any positive response which prompted the petitioner-Union to file WP(C) No.3354/2013.

5. The writ petition was disposed on 29.04.2014 by directing the State respondents to take a decision on the closure of the respondent No.5 and on the proposal for implementation of VRS upon the members of the petitioner-union in accordance with law within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of the order.

6. After the writ petition was disposed of in the above manner, the respondent No. 1 vide Order dated 16.10.2014 (Annexure-13) disposed of the claim of the petitioner by holding that there cannot be any valid justi