T. A. No. 477/2009 (C.W.P. No. 7816-17/2005), M.A. No. 2588/2010. Case: 1. Indraprastha Hotel Employees Association, Through its President, 2. Suresh Kumar S/o Pritam Singh Vs 1. Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Tourism, 2. Indian Tourism Development Corporation Limited, Through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, 3. Hotel Indraprastha (Hotel Queen Road Private Limited) (Ashok Yatri Niwas), Through its Director. Central Administrative Tribunal

Case NumberT. A. No. 477/2009 (C.W.P. No. 7816-17/2005), M.A. No. 2588/2010
JudgesMeera Chhibber (Judicial Member) & Shailendra Pandey (Accountant Member)
IssueIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2(p), 9A, 18(1); Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 12; Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 391, 394
Judgement DateJuly 15, 2011
CourtCentral Administrative Tribunal

Judgment:

Meera Chhibber (Judicial Member), (Principal Bench New Delhi)

  1. Writ Petition was filed by Indraprastha Hotel Employees Association (hereinafter referred to IHEA) and one Shri Suresh Kumar claiming the following relief:-

    (i) issue writ of mandamus or any other writ/direction/order of the similar nature whereby directing the respondents authorities to provide reemployment to the employees Hotel Indraprastha;

    (ii) issue writ of certiorari or any other/direction/order of similar nature, whereby quashing the Hotel Indraprastha Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2003 taken out by the respondent No.3 on 2.7.2003 being null and void;

    (iii) issue writ of mandamus or any other writ/direction/order of the similar nature whereby directing the respondents authorities to provide full pension to the employees of Hotel Indraprastha who had been retired under the VRS Scheme;

    (iv) issue writ of mandamus or any other writ/direction/order of the similar nature whereby directing the respondents authorities to provide medical benefits as per the Memorandum of Settlement dated 15.6.2002 and Office order dated 24.7.2000; and

    (v) pass any other and further order/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

  2. The Writ Petition was transferred to the Tribunal vide order dated 5.2.2009 in view of Notification dated 1.12.2008 and has been renumbered as TA 477/2009.

  3. It is stated by the petitioner No.2, who is the President of IHEA that he has filed the Writ Petition as President of the Association and in his individual capacity because their legal rights have been violated.

  4. The brief facts as alleged are that the members of the Association were the employees of India Tourism Development Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as ITDC) and posted at Hotel Indraprastha. On 24.7.2000, ITDC introduced Post Retirement Medical Benefits to its employees who had served the corporation for not less than 15 years on the date of superannuation/death on or after June, 2000 or opt for VRS in future. Similarly the employees who had attained the age of 50 years were entitled to the pension scheme.

  5. On 15.4.2002, ITDC had introduced VRS for its employees according to which a regular employee who had completed minimum 10 years of service and presently on the rolls/working in above hotel would have been eligible for voluntary retirement under the scheme. However, in 2001 ITDC de-merged Hotel Indraprastha and incorporated Hotel Queen Road Pvt. Ltd. and transferred all the assets and employees to the Hotel Queen Road Pvt. Ltd. without taking their consent.

  6. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that disinvestment agreement could not have affected the service conditions of the members Association without giving notice under Section 9-A of the I.D. Act, 1947 to its employees who were regular/permanent employees of the respondent No.2 which is a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

  7. As per their appointment letter they could have been transferred only to any other unit of ITDC but could not have been transferred to a private company, yet ITDC transferred the services to a Private Company, who within one year either forced the petitioners to opt for VRS or terminated their services, which is absolutely illegal.

  8. Since there are number of posts vacant in ITDC, they should have been adjusted against those posts. In fact, petitioners are being discriminated against inasmuch as, number of other persons were transferred to other units of ITDC before the de-merger. The petitioners had also requested that they be transferred to other units but their request has not been acceded to.

  9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that as per the share purchase agreement, hotel was to be operated but respondent No.3 closed the hotel in April, 2003 and pushed all the petitioners on road.

  10. Being aggrieved, number of representations were given but no heed was paid. It is a clear case of harassment by respondent No.3 which is evident from the following facts:-

    (i) Shri Govind Prasad was suspended on 15.7.2003 on the ground of misconduct. He had not opted for VRS. His suspension was revoked but memorandum was issued to him.

    (ii) Respondent No.3 vide its order dated 5.7.2003 directed Ms. Mahendri Devi to perform broken duty from 7 a.m. to 11 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. by taking undue advantage of its position and compelled Ms. Mehendri Devi, who is widow and belongs to downtrodden community. (iii) Ram Lal had not taken VRS. The respondent No.3 started harassing Shri Ram Lal. Shri Ram Lal made various complaints at various levels against the illegal action of Respondent No.3. The petitioners submit that the respondent No.3 vide its order dated 30.1.2004 illegally terminated the services of Shri Ram Lal.

  11. It is strenuously argued by the counsel for the petitioners that all the employees of the Hotel are jobless and have no source to feed their families, therefore, they need to be...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT