The court considered the peculiar nature of the case, compelling circumstances, and financial difficulties faced by the subsidiary in reaching its decision.

JUDGMENT

B.P. Das, J.

1. In these three writ applications the facts and the relief sought for being same and similar, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The challenge in these writ applications is to the order dated May 16, 2001 passed by the Managing Director, Orissa Small Industries Corporation Ltd. (OSIC), O.P. 2, so far as it relates to the reversion of the petitioners, then working in the Head office/Raw Material Depots of the OSIC, to their parent organisation, i.e. Orissa Pump and Engineering Company Ltd. (OPEC).

In the aforesaid impugned order dated May 16, 2001, the name of the petitioner in, O.J.C. No. 6878/2001, who was working as Senior Assistant, finds place at serial No. 7 whereas the names of the petitioner in O.J.C. Nos. 6887 and 6890 of 2001, who were working as Helpers, find place at serial Nos. 8 and 9-respectively.

2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of these writ applications are as follows:

The petitioner in O.J.C. No. 6878/2001-was appointed on June 20, 1987 to work as Jr. Assistant and the petitioners in O.J.C. Nos. 6887 and 6890 of 2001 were appointed to work as N.M.R. employees under the Orissa Pump and Engineering Company Ltd. (OPEC), which was a wholly owned subsidiary unit of OSIC. Thereafter, the services of all the petitioners were regularized. They were relieved from their duties and directed to report for duties in the OSIC and accordingly they joined and worked in different capacities.

It is further stated that the OSIC in its 113th Board Meeting held on May 18, 1996 took a decision with regard to the sanctioned posts available at OSIC and accordingly prepared a list showing sanctioned posts available in different cadres of OSIC. It was also decided that the said sanctioned posts would include all posts comprising the OSIC cadre, and those posts which had been filled up for the present by the officers on deputation from the Government as well as from other manufacturing units. While the petitioners were so working in the OSIC, the OSIC decided to sell and transfer the unit, namely, OPEC, admittedly its wholly owned subsidiary, in which the petitioners were initially engaged, to sotne private entrepreneurs. An agreement to that effect was executed between the private entrepreneurs, namely, M.K. Agarwal and P.K. Mohanty, and the OSIC on October 21, 1998 (Annexure-12 to O.J.C. 6878/2001 and Annexure-6 to O.J.C. Nos. 6887 and 6890 of 2001) and as per the said agreement, the OSIC transferred all the shares held by it in OPEC to the said private entrepreneurs. In this manner the OPEC went to the hands of the private entrepreneurs. According to the petitioners, after the transfer of the said unit there was labour unrest in the OPEC and after negotiation with the new management, it was agreed that all the employees of OPEC would be allowed to continue under the new management and accordingly, a notice was published in the local Oriya daily ’The Samaj’ calling upon the employees to join the work by November 21, 1998 or else they would be deemed to have tendered their resignation voluntarily. Again another notice dated November 10, 1999 was published in the Oriya daily "The Samaj" calling upon the employees, who had not joined, to join in work by January 12, 1999 failing which new employees would be appointed in their place and in future no claim of the old employees would be entertained. But so far as the petitioners are concerned, as they were working in the OSIC, they were neither asked to go back to OPEC nor were they relieved from their duties because of the reason that it was known to the management of OSIC that by then the petitioners had become fulltime regular employees of the OSIC. This claim of the petitioners gets support from the EPF annual statement for the year 1999-2000, wherein the petitioner in O.J.C. No. 6878/2001 was shown as the employee under OSIC. Copy of the said statement is annexed as Annexure-8 in O.J.C. 6878/2001.

The petitioner in O.J.C.