Back
S.B. Sinha & V.S. Sirpurkar
National Textile Corporation (M.P.) Ltd. — PETITIONER:
Vs.
M.R. Jhadav — RESPONDENT:
CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2957 of 2008
[Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 6934 of 2006]
Decided On : 24/04/2008
(2001) 3 SCC 290: 2001(1) Supreme 444; (1994) 4 SCC 293; (2000) 7 SCC 390: 2000(6) Supreme 98 - Distinguished
(b) Service Law - VRS - A Voluntary Retirement Scheme contemplates cessation of the relationship of master and servant - The rights and obligations of the parties thereto shall become enforceable only on completion of the contract - The contract becomes only when the offer by the employee is accepted by the employer - Acceptance of the offer, therefore, must be communicated. (Para 20)
(2003) 2 SCC 721: 2003(1) Supreme 842 - Relied upon
(c) Words and Phrases - Communication - An internal noting does not constitute a communication - Even in a case of order of suspension, only when the case goes out of the control of the appropriate authority, actual communication may not be necessary. (Para 24)
AIR 1966 SC 1313; (2006) 8 SCC 279: 2006(7) Supreme 180; (2007) 7 SCC 309 - Relied upon
(d) Service Law - VRS - Only administrative approval communicated to respondent indicating therein that the funds were not sanctioned by H.O. - Respondent drawing his salary and perks till superannuation without indicating that he was doing so without prejudice to his rights and contentions - He must be held to have waived his rights, if any. (Para 25)
(e) Service Law - VRS - The scheme providing for ex gratia payment for remaining years of service - With the roll back of age of retirement, there being no service left, even ex gratia could not be paid. (Para 31)
Facts of the case:
1. Respondent at all material times was working as an Assistant Spinning Master. A Voluntary Retirement Scheme was floated by the appellant.
2. Respondent, on or about 16.05.2000 opted for the said Scheme with effect from 31.07.2000.
3. Indisputably, administrative clearance in relation thereto was made but no decision taken by a competent committee in that behalf was communicated to the respondent. Indisputably, he at the material time was aged over 57 years.
4. Respondent on expiry of the said date, i.e., 31.07.2000, requested the appellant for being relieved from his post by a letter dated 19.09.2000.
5. According to the appellant, sufficient fund was not available with it for implementation of the scheme and to proceed with the request of the respondent for his offer to retire voluntarily in terms of the said Scheme.
6. Indisputably, however, the retirement age of the employees of the appellant corporation was rolled back from 60 years to 58 years.
7. Respondent s writ petition was allowed.
Findings of the Court:
Final VRS acceptance having not been communicated, respondent did not derive any legal right thereto.
Result:
Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT:
S.B. SINHA, J :
1. Leave granted.
2. Interpretation of a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) floated by the appellant Corporation is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 10.01.2006 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in Writ Petition No. 2623 of 2001.
3. Respondent at all material times was working as an Assistant Spinning Master. A Voluntary Retirement Scheme was floated by the appellant.
4. Respondent, on or about 16.05.2000 opted for the said Scheme with effect from 31.07.2000. The said application was in a prescribed proforma, the relevant portion of which reads as under:
"With reference to your circular/ Notice No…. dated./Memorandum of Settlement dated containing details of N.T.C. Scheme of Voluntary Retirement, I hereby tender my unconditional resignation from my post and service of your mills/ office with effect from. I hereby opt for Voluntary Retirement in terms of above said Scheme of Voluntary Retirement which I have carefully read and understood.
2. I hereby undertake that I shall not claim any payments from your management/ mills/ company on account of my Voluntary resignation consequent on my Voluntary Retirement other than those admissible under the aforesaid scheme of Voluntary Retirement.
3. I also undertake that I shall not at all withdraw resignation herein tendered by me from your service. I have furnished the required particulars in the Appendix enclosed."
5. Indisputably, administrative clearance in relation thereto was made but no decision taken by a competent committee in that behalf was communicated to the respondent. Indisputably, he at the material time was aged over 57 years.
6. Respondent on expiry of the said date, i.e., 31.07.2000, requested the appellant for being relieved from his post by a letter dated 19.09.2000.
7. According to the appellant, sufficient fund was not available with it for implementation of the scheme and to proceed with the request of the respondent for his offer to retire voluntarily in terms of the said Scheme. The General Manager in his letter dated 26.09.2000 addressed to the respondent, stated:
"In reference to your VRS proposal dated 16.5.2000, we have received the administrative approval from HO vide letter of IR/ VRS/NBT/99/980 dated 24.5.2000. Accordingly, your VRS was prepared and sent to HO for funds. HO has informed us that the funds for payment of VRS are not forthcoming hence do not relieve the employees on relieving date till further orders.
Therefore, we are not in a position to relieve you as requested by you, which you please note."
8. Respondent issued a legal notice upon the appellant contending that it had not been acting to effectuate his application under VRS on the ground of non-availability of funds.
9. Indisputably, however, the retirement age of the employees of the appellant corporation was rolled back from 60 years to 58 years. The decision was taken by the CMD of the Holding Company which was approved by the Board of Directors of the Corporation; the procedures wherefor were specified as under:
"(a) The employees who have already attained the age of 58 years or shall attain the same by 31st December 2000 will retire on the close of office hours on 31st January, 2001.
(b) The employees who would attain the age of 58 years in January, 2001 or thereafter will retire in the month in which they attain the age of 58 years in the normal course."
10. Respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore inter alia praying for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the appellant to effectuate his VRS application on and from 1.08.2000 upon making payment of admissible dues. The said writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of the said Court, by an order dated 8.03.2001, stating:
"2. In the situation of this nature, the only direction at this stage that this Court can give is to decide the application of the petitioner by the respond
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
