On 29th August, 2011, learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court vide companymon order dismissed the 10 writ petitions, as number maintainable against TCL, the reconstituted entity of VSNL after disinvestment.
The OCS department of Ministry of telecommunication companytinued till 31st of March, 1986.
The Govt.
Disinvestment Between 1992 and 2000, Government of India divested a portion of its share holding in VSNL by sale of equity to certain funds, banks and financial institutions companytrolled by the Government in 1992 and to the general public in 1999.
in C.A.No.2147 of 2010.
They were to be treated on deputation on Foreign Service to VSNL without deputation allowance.
Ten writ petitions were filed by the employees before the Delhi High Court and 2 writ petitions were filed before the Bombay High Court challenging the orders of termination.
As numbericed earlier, Division Bench of the Bombay High Court also dismissed the writ petitions by order dated 7th September, 2009 and 8th September, 2009 against which the appellant herein have filed Special Leave Petition C No.
These are Ram Prakash vs. Union of India Ors.
Meanwhile on 28th January, 2008, subsequent to the disinvestment in 2002, the name of VSNL being a Tata Group Company was changed to Tata Communications Limited.
The decision of the management shall number be question.
4619 of 2011 and Civil Appeal No.
in A.No.425 of 2012.
emphasis added Prior to disinvestment, VSNL enjoyed the monopoly in respect of international long distance service ILDS , which ceased with effect from 5th February, 2004.
425 of 2012 before this Court.
stood transferred to VSNL.
It appears that the Tata Group by a letter dated 14th April, 2002 to ensure that the morale of the present employees of the VSNL is maintained at a high level and that they companytinue to deliver their best performance, decided that it shall cause VSNL number to retrench any of the employees of VSNL for a period of two years from 13th February, 2002.
4A. Only two of the original writ appellants have approached this Court in the civil appeals against the judgment of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court by way of civil appeals.
The aforesaid termination was said to have been effected in terms of Clause 1.6 of the appointment letter which reads as under 1.6 After companyfirmation, your appointment may be terminated by either side at any time by giving three months numberice in writing.
The date of induction of the employees in the Corporation will be the date from which they have exercised the option to be absorbed in the Company with the approval of the companypetent authority.
The Government also assured that the employees of the OCS will number be removed by the VSNL unless their case was placed before the companypetent authority in the Government.
has been filed challenging the aforesaid order of the Division Bench.
Submissions We have heard the learned companynsel for the parties.
In 1997, the Government of India sold some of its equity holdings by issuing Global Depository Receipts GDRs following which VSNL was listed on the London Stock Exchange.
The Corporation VSNL would finalise the terms and companyditions for employment in the Corporation within a period of 12 months or on any specified date as may be agreed upon by the Government.
Background of VSNL Origin of Overseas Communication Service in short OCS On 1st of January, 1947 Indian Radio and Telecommunication companypany Ltd. a Private Company operating Indias external telecommunication service was taken over by the Govt.
On 15th August, 2000, VSNL became first Public Sector Undertaking of India to be listed on the New York Stock Exchange through companyversion of underlying GDRs to American Depository Receipts ADRs .
Thereafter, the companypany was listed on Indian Stock Exchange.
Out of the said four persons Ram Prakash and Vijay Thakur have filed Civil Appeal No.5740 of 2012 and Civil Appeal No.
These employees also were to be treated as though on the strength of OCS as on 31st March, 1986 till their cases were finalized by the VSNL.
Under this, the employees were given the option to retain the pensionary benefits available to them under the Government rules or be governed by the rules of the Public Sector Undertaking Autonomous Bodies.
930 of 2011 and 931 of 2011 were dismissed by the companymon order dated 15th November, 2011.
The orders of termination issued to the aforesaid 20 employees were identical.
Thereafter on 11th December, 1989, VSNL issued STAFF NOTICE on the subject Absorption of OCS Employees in VSNL.
On 5th February, 2004, VSNL was granted a number exclusive licence by the Government of India pursuant to the disinvestment.
All the appellants in writ petitions had been working in the Ministry of Communication, in particular, Department of Overseas Communication Service OCS from 1st March, 1971 onwards.
Proceedings in the Delhi High Court Ten writ petitions were filed by the former employees of the Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited VSNL .
The aforesaid order was challenged by four of the writ appellants in LPA which was dismissed by separate orders on 14th November, 2011, 15th November, 2011 and 17th February, 2012.
Civil Appeal No.3933 of 2013 Special Leave Petition No.4619 of 2011 titled as M.P.Singh vs. Union of India Ors.
Thereafter other telecom licensees like Reliance, Airtel, Idea, Aircel, HFCL and even Government companypanies like MTNL and BSNL became companypetitors in respect of ILDS.
The solemn promise of number being removed was incorporated in the Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules framed by the VSNL in the year 1992.
was dismissed in limine by the Division Bench on 8th September, 2009 in view of the order dated 7th September, 2009 passed in Writ Petition No.2139 of 2007.
LPA Nos.
1st April, 1986, all international telecommunication services of the companyntry handled by the Govt.
Accordingly, w.e.f.
Clause 1 of the number exclusive licence reads as under In view of the fact that the LICENSEE is the INCUMBENT OPERATOR and in companysideration of the payments including LICENCE FEE and due performance of all the terms and companyditions mentioned in the SCHEDULE on the part of the LICENSEE, the Licensor does, hereby grant, under Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, on a number exclusive basis, this Licence to establish, install, operate and maintain INTERNATIONAL LONG DISTANCE SERVICE on the terms and companyditions companytained in the SCHEDULE and ANNEXURES appended to this LICENCE AGREEMENT.
Finally, the VSNL absorbed en masse the erstwhile employees of OCS with effect from 1st January, 1990.
On 5th July, 1989, the Government had issued Office Memorandum No.4/18/87 PPW D on the subject Settlement of Pensionary terms etc.
It is pertinent to numbere here that all the appellants had opted to join VSNL.
VSNL however, reserve the right of terminating your services forthwith or before expiry of the stipulated period of numberice of 3 months by making payment to you of a sum equivalent to the pay and allowances for the period of numberice or unexpired portion thereof.
in respect of Government employees transferred en masse to Central Public Sector Undertakings Central Autonomous Bodies.
Appellant Nos.
vs. Union of India Ors.
along with its employees on the terms and companyditions as they had with the private companypany.
Those who do number opt for absorption will be treated as on deputation on foreign service with the Corporation for a period of 2 years without deputation allowance.
Conversion of OCS into VSNL Ministry of Communication took a decision to companyvert its OCS Department into a Public Sector Corporation PSC .
Their dates of appointment on various posts are as under Appellant Nos.
A numberification to this effect was issued on 19th March, 1986 and the Corporation was named as VSNL.
in A.No.5740 of 2012 and Vijay Thakur vs. V.S.N.L. and Anr.
created a department in ministry of telecommunication known as Overseas Communication Service OCS that dealt companymunication of India subjects with the rest of the world.
Departments.
It was provided that the employees will be asked to exercise their option for being absorbed in the companypany or otherwise within the stipulated period.
Till 31st March, 1986, they were holding responsible posts in the OCS.
The aforesaid numberice of absorption including the terms and companyditions of absorption was also issued individually to each employee.
The numberification also provided that pensionary and other retirement benefits to the employees on their absorption in the Corporation will be determined in accordance with the Department of Pensions and Pensioners Welfare O.M. No.4 8 85 P PW dated 13th January, 1986 and as amended from time to time.
vs. Union of India Ors.
The learned Single Judge accepted the aforesaid preliminary objection and dismissed the writ petitions by judgment and order dated 29th August, 2011.
Letters Patent Appeal No.924 of 2011 challenging the aforesaid order was dismissed by the Division Bench on 14th November, 2011.
They have a clean record of service.
2147 of 2010.
It appears that on 16th July, 2007 and 4th October, 2007, the services of 20 managerial employees were terminated after paying them 3 months salary in lieu of numberice.
1 and 2 were appointed as Assistant Engineer on 16th May 1983 and 1st September, 1983, respectively.
All the employees were deemed to have been transferred to the VSNL on the existing terms and companyditions till their case for absorption or otherwise are decided upon by the VSNL in companysultation with the cadre companytrolling authority and other companycerned Govt.
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR,J. Leave granted in SLP No.4619 of 2011.
Writ Petition No.2652 of 2007 titled as Jatya Pal Singh Ors.
The aforesaid order has been impugned by the appellants writ petitioners in the High Court Jatya Pal Singh Ors.
VSNL had raised a preliminary objection that a writ petition would number be maintainable against it as it is neither a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India number is it performing any public function.
For the purpose of this order, we shall make a reference to the facts as pleaded in C.A.No.2147 of 2010.
3 and 4 were appointed as Junior Technical Assistant on 1st March, 1971 and 13th January, 1976 and appellants 5 and 6 were appointed on 8th January, 1980.
During their companytinuous service with respondent No.1, they had earned promotions at due time on merit.
