ALL INDIA ITDC WORKERS UNION AND ORS. versus ITDC & ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 127 · Decided: 31-10-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

ALL INDIA ITDC WORKERS UNION AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
ITDC&ORS. 
OCTOBER 31, 2006 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND A.K. MATHUR, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India-Articles I 4, 2 I and 311- Disinvestment decision 
by Government of India-Sale of a five star hotel property of India Tourism 
Development Corporation to a private party-Writ Petitions by Workers C 
Union challenging it as being arbitrary and illegal-Held, disinvestment 
decision is a policy decision of the Government which should be least 
interfered.in judicial review-On facts, the interests of the workers are fully 
protected and hence their allegations are baseless. 
Petitioners filed Writ Petitions before High Court questioning the D 
decision of the Government of India in disinvesting one of the five star Hotels 
belonging to Indian Tourism Development corporation (ITDQ by selling it to 
a private party as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioners contended that 
Government oflndia sold the Hotel far below its market price;'that they belong 
to All India Common Cadre , being officers of the ITDC , and hence the 
transfer of their services to the new employer is illegal and arbitrary. The E 
Writ Petitions of the petitioners were transferred to this Court. The 
petitioners filed an application before this Court to dire<'t the respondents to 
make applicable the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) introduced by the 
Government of India to them also as they are similarly situated and serving 
under similar conditions under which employees of different ITDC Hotels are F 
circumstanced and serve the ITDC. 
Respondent No. 1 contended that disinvestment is a policy decision of 
the Government of India; that this Court has held that the said policy decisions 
should be least interfered in judicial review and hence the petitioners have 
no absolute right under Articles 14, 21 and 311 of the Constitution oflndia; G 
that the petitioners are public sector Undertaking employees and not 
Government employees; that the rights of the petitioners are not affected; that, 
after disinvestment, it is for the new employer to float VRS to its employees 
and hence the petitioners cannot demand to apply the VRS introduced for its 
other unit 
127 
H 
128 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A 
The Union of India contended that the Public Sector Disinvesment 
Commission recommended disinvestment of ITDC as it falls in non-core 
category; and that a decision was taken to divest each property of ITDC 
individually. 
Other respondents contended that the Government of India took a 
B decision for disinvestment of the properties owned by respond<;nt No. 1 as 
they were running in huge losses; that there is no change in service condition 
of the petitioners as per the terms of share purchase agreement; and that 
there was no policy decision of VRS to the petitioners. 
c 
D 
Disposing of the Transferred cases, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Disinvestment in Public Sector Enterprises is a policy 
decision of the Government of India. The policy decision should be least 
interfered in judicial review and that the workers have no absolute right under 
Articles 14, 21and311 of the Constitution oflndia challenge the same. 
(138-D-E) 
1.2. The decision of the Government of India to divest the property was 
a policy decision which was not in any manner contrary to the law of the land. 
It is evident from the scheme that the terms and conditions of service applicable 
to the employees were not in any way being less favourable then 'those 
E applicable to them immediately on the date tltereof. The apprehension of the 
employees is baseless. (138-G-H; 139-C; 139-F-G] 
1.3. The petitioners cannot claim parity in respect of other employees 
working under ITDC in different properties. Respondents are under no 
obligation to float the VRS scheme since the VRS has to be given only when 
F company is retrenches its regular t:mployees. The company is ready to 
continue with its employees w~th the same terms and conditions mentioned in 
the share purchase agreement The employees cannot compel the management 
to introduce VRS scheme. (140-F-H) 
1.4. The Government has acted on advise of experts before taking a 
G decision to disinvest its shares in ITDC Limited. Even thereafter, through a 
fair and transparent process, the Government has ensured that it has got the 
best price for its shares. The Government has not received any other higher 
offer. The contenthn of the petitioners that the price is less has not been 
supporte

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.