TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (8) TMI 551
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tter dated 3-2-1981 and the said letter contained various terms and conditions of employment, one of which being eligibility for housing accommodation on the terms during the tenure of employment of the accused/opposite party. As per the aforesaid terms the accused/opposite party was allowed housing accommodation of the company in respect of Quarter No. TR-152, ABL Township, Durgapur- 713206. (b) The company allowed the accused/opposite party to occupy the residential premises as licensee which was to be vacated immediately upon the accused/opposite party quitting the service of the company or upon the termination thereof by the company. The terms also included that in the event, the accused fails to vacate the quarter within 24 hours of his quitting service of the company, he shall be treated as trespasser. (c) The accused/opposite party retired from the service of the company on 30-9-2016 and thereafter on several occasions the accused was called upon to vacate the said quarter which he was occupying, since he was no longer entitled to occupy the same by reasons of his superannuation from the employment, however, the accused on one pretext or the other continued to occupy t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er the provisions of Section 452 of the Companies Act and a further application under Section 452(2) of the Companies Act to vacate the said quarter during the pendency of the said proceedings. The Ld. Advocate also submitted that the contentions raised by the opposite party particularly with regard to the order dated 21-3-2017 passed in WP 7198(W) of 2017 is in respect of a scheme which was valid till 30-12-2008 and the opposite party having superannuated on 30-9-2016, which is much after the expiry of the scheme was in force, is not entitled to get the benefit of any orders passed in the writ petition. Further according to the Ld. Advocate for the petitioner the said scheme related to those employees who opted for voluntary retirement scheme and the scheme for utilization of company's houses in the Township. The opposite party having not opted for VRS or the scheme for utilization of company quarter is not entitled to any protection under the order so passed in WP 7198(W) of 2017. The counter argument so placed by the Ld. Advocate for the petitioner in respect of the contention advanced by the opposite party that the final settlement amount has not been utilized by the opposite p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ervice condition and the scheme so introduced is still continuing and is applicable to superannuated employees, further the present complainant has extended the scheme to many other employees who have opted for superannuation or early retirement. Additionally the scheme has not been recalled and thus can be presumed to be still subsisting, therefore, the opposite party is entitled to be covered by the order dated 21-3-2017 passed in WP 7198(W) of 2017. Finally he argues that the provisions of Section 452 of the Companies Act are not applicable in the factual background of the present case, as the company has not settled the dues of the present accused/opposite party. The Ld. Advocate has relied upon 2002 (3) LLN 1119, a judgment of the Allahabad High Court with the aid of which he tried to substantiate under what circumstances the provisions of Section 452 are not applicable. In order to appreciate the rival contention of the parties the order dated 17-4-2019 so passed by the Ld. ACJM, Durgapur is required to be reassessed in view of the fact that the Ld. Magistrate firstly framed an issue as to "whether the accused person was liable to be evicted from the company's quarter at the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y of schemes are applicable. The accused/opposite party could not produce any document before this Court that at the date of superannuation, i.e. September, 2016 there existed any scheme under which he was entitled to get the benefit for retaining the quarter No. TR-152, ABL Township, Durgapur- 713206, which was allotted as per the terms of his service. It would be now apposite to rely upon the different judgments which have been cited at the Bar. In Metal Box (supra) relied upon by the Ld. Advocate for the petitioner, the ratio was arrived at after taking into account the provisions of Section 630(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 which were given effect to during the pendency of the criminal trial and the employee was directed to vacate the flat. In Tata Tea Ltd. (supra) it was held by this Court that it is in consonance with the view of the Hon'ble Apex Court to pass an order under Section 630(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 to direct an employee or past employee to vacate the flat or to restore the company's property to the company even before the Magistrate trying the case under Section 630(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 formally disposes of the criminal case against such employee.....