JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Interpretation of the provisions of Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vis-`-vis a Voluntary Retirement Scheme framed by the State of Andhra Pradesh is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 13.4.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeal No. 820 of 2005 dismissing the appeal from a judgment and order dated 21.3.2005 passed by a learned single judge of the said Court in Writ Petition No. 4196 of 2005.

3. Appellants were the employees of Nagarjuna Cooperative Sugars Limited, a Government of Andhra Pradesh Undertaking. It was declared to be a 'relief undertaking' in terms of Andhra Pradesh Relief Undertaking (Special Provisions) Act, 1971. The management of the industrial undertaking declared lay off wherefor compensation was to be paid. The Employees' Union of the said industrial undertaking filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh questioning a Memo dated 5.1.1998 whereby and whereunder lay off compensation was denied to the workmen. According to the workmen, that lay off compensation was paid only for the months of June and July 1995. They claimed existing legal right for obtaining lay off compensation for the period 1.8.1995 to 6.9.2002.

4. Before, however, we embark upon the said question, we may place on record that the State of Andhra Pradesh sold the said factory to one SCM Sugars Limited. Some of the workmen were absorbed by the transferee Company. Out of the said absorbed employees, some of them were paid lay off compensation and some were not. At one point of time, all the workmen had shown their willingness to continue to work under the new management.

Later, however, the Government of Andhra Pradesh permitted the said SCM Sugars Limited to shift the factory to the State of Karnataka, as a result whereof, the workmen lost the opportunity to continue to be employed.

5. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O. Ms. No. 25 dated 21.5.2001 providing for a special compensation package for the employees. The said amount of compensation was to be paid to the workmen only in the event they had not opted for employment with the new owner.

6. The benefits provided for under the said Voluntary Retirement Scheme were stated as under:

"Terminal benefits

The following benefits as statutorily due will be paid as per eligibility.

i. The balance in the P.F. Account payable as per the CPF regulation.

ii. Cash equivalent of accumulated earned leave as per the rules of the enterprise.

iii. Gratuity as per the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act or other applicable Rules of the Organization.

EXGRATIA BENEFITS

i) An employee who is regular or permanent, whose request for VRS is accepted would be entitled to an Ex-gratia payment equivalent to One and Half months emoluments (Pay + DA) last drawn, for each completed year of service or the monthly emoluments at the time of retirement multiplied by the balance months of service left before normal date of retirement whichever is less, subject to a minimum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only). One month/three months notice pay, as per the service conditions applicable."

7. Appellants opted for voluntary retirement. Indisputably, they were paid the amount of special compensation in terms of the said G.O. Contending, however, that the said Voluntary Retirement Scheme did not provide for payment of lay off compensation, a writ petition was filed by the Union, which was marked as Writ Petition No. 16916 of 1998. Before the High Court, a contention was raised by the respondents herein that the workmen having taken voluntary retirement and the relationship of employer and employee having ceased, the writ petition was not maintainable. A learned single ju