HC seeks Centre’s reply on HMT Ranibagh VRS closure appeals

HC seeks Centre’s reply on HMT Ranibagh VRS closure appeals
Petitioners said VRS benefits were not given as per 2007 pay-scale terms and training-period service was ignored, while Centre said factory closure followed rules
Dehradun: Uttarakhand high court fixed July 16 for hearing arguments of Central govt and HMT Limited in around 40 special appeals challenging a single-bench order in a matter related to HMT Kamgar Sangh and the closure of HMT Ranibagh. A division bench of chief justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and justice Subhash Upadhyay heard the appeals, in which petitioners argued that employees were not given Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) benefits as per the earlier stipulated conditions.They also said services rendered during the training period were not counted, which they claimed violated the agreed terms. Counsel for the petitioners said, “The employees were neither granted VRS benefits in accordance with the previously stipulated conditions nor was the service rendered during training taken into account.” The counsel argued that the closure and settlement process had not followed the conditions laid down before the factory was shut.Central govt submitted that the factory was closed in strict compliance with prescribed conditions and that employees had been granted VRS benefits. “The closure was carried out as per the prescribed conditions and employees have been accorded the benefits of VRS,” the Centre said before the court.
According to case details, Central govt had on Nov 17, 2016, granted permission for conditional closure of HMT Ranibagh. Following a policy decision taken by Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs, chaired by PM, the directive said employees were to be offered a VRS package based on 2007 pay scales before the factory was closed.The petitioners alleged that HMT management closed the factory without complying with this condition. HMT Kamgar Sangh had earlier moved a petition before a single bench, but it was dismissed, following which the Sangh challenged the decision before the division bench.

author
About the AuthorPankul Sharma

A journalist based in Dehradun, Uttarakhand, with over 22 years of experience in the field of journalism. Currently serves as a special correspondent. He covers the Judiciary (High Court, NGT, Consumer Commission, and Tribunals), Archaeology, Culture, and Industry.

End of Article
Follow Us On Social Media