TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (11) TMI 1142
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... respondent was working as a Chief Welfare Officer under the third respondent-Corporation. His services were terminated by an order dated 15-12-1981. The fourth respondent preferred an appeal to the State Government invoking its jurisdiction under the third Proviso to rule 6(iv) of the Orissa Welfare Officers (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1970. After hearing parties the State Government set aside the order of termination and directed reinstatement of respondent No. 4. The third respondent-Corporation then insisted that reinstatement could be given effect to with effect from the date of the appellate order and not from the date of order of termination. The fourth respondent then filed a writ petition in the High Court of Ori....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etition the State of Orissa contended that the appellants having taken over all liabilities in terms of an MOU dated 20-4-1991 had to pay the dues of the fourth respondent. The High Court by the impugned judgment has directed the appellant to pay dues as set out herein above. 5. The only question contended before us is that it is not the appellants but the State of Orissa which is liable to pay the dues of the fourth respondent. On the other hand on behalf of the State of Orissa it has been contended that the appellants are liable to pay the amount. 6. In order to determine who is liable to pay the arrears of salary of the fourth respondent one has to look at the Scheme, which has been sanctioned by BIFR, and the correspondence and MO....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ose who have reached superannuation dates before the date of sanction of the scheme, will get their normal retirement benefits for which they are entitled to; (iii)About 90 employees of these offices other than those who have reached superannuation will stand retrenched with effect from the date of sanction of the scheme. They will be entitled to due compensation, and funds have been provided for this purpose." Thus it is clear that under the Scheme it was the State of Orissa who was to pay the arrears due to employees of the Corporate Branch and Sales Offices up to the date of sanction of the Scheme i.e., up to 21-12-1990. 7. The correspondence between the appellants and the State of Orissa consists of letters dated 5-3-1991, 13-3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to obtain requisite approval under the MRTP Act for acquiring the assets of TPM-3 is expeditiously granted. 2. That the award dated 21-12-1990 passed by the BIFR has provided that an amount of Rs. 1.6 crores is to be paid to the workman of TPM-3 for the period till January 31, 1989 and whereas in accordance with the letter No. 7956/I-IX-HI-28/91 dated 21-3-1991 issued by the State Government BILT has started the process of direct negotiations with the workman of TPM-3 for a settlement in respect of their claims and wages for the period after 31-1-1989, the parties hereto hereby declare that it is their intention and objective that a just and fair settlement should be reached with the workmen thereby covering all the issues pertaining to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed Income-tax Authority/the liability under this head is not capable of being quantified/ estimated and as such is undertaken to be payable in toto in principle. However, the dues in respect of the claims and wages of the workmen of TPM-3 for the period subsequent to 31-1-1989 will be determined by direct negotiations with the workmen and such liability is undertaken in principle to be paid by BILT accordingly. Further, in accordance with the terms of the said award and the terms as contained in the Letter of Acceptance No. 7006/I-IX-III-28/91 dated 16-3-1991 issued by the State Government to BILT, BILT shall pay the balance dues of the State Government, if any, free of interest to the State Government and Central Excise dues t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d also include the fourth respondent though he was not a workman. We are unable to accept this submission. Even in the letter of 5-3-1991, it is clarified that the dues of the workmen are to the extent of Rs. 1.60 crores. This liability of Rs. 1.60 crores is the same as had been set out in the Scheme as being labour dues of Rs. 160 lakhs. The liability is the same as that provided in clause 3(ii) of the MOU. It could not be disputed that appellants have paid the sum of Rs. 1.60 crores to the workmen. The claim of respondent No. 4 is in addition to and over and above the claim of the workmen in the sum of Rs. 1.60 crores. The liability of the arrears of salary payable to the fourth respondent was not taken over by the appellants even though ....