ORDER

1. Delay in filing the application for substitution is condoned, substitution is allowed and abatement is set aside.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. These appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment of the Karnataka High Court at Bangalore dated 13-9-2001.

3. The facts of the case in detail have been set out in the impugned order and hence we are not repeating the same here.

4. The short question involved in these appeals is "whether after an employee has accepted the VRS Scheme and received payment under it, can he subsequently claim a higher amount because of subsequent wage revision a with retrospective effect by the employer".

5. This Court in HEC Voluntary Retd. Employees Welfare Society v. Heavy Engg. Corpn. Ltd., vide paras 11 and 12, observed as under at p. 248 of LLJ: (SCC p. 715, paras 11-12)

"11. An offer for voluntary retirement in terms of a scheme, when accepted, leads to a concluded contract between the employer and the b employee. In terms of such a scheme, an employee has an option either to accept or not to opt there for. The scheme is purely voluntary, in terms whereof the tenure of service is curtailed, which is permissible in law.

Such a sc