Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI, R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.
MADHYA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION – APPELLANT VERSUS
MANOJ KUMAR & ANR. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4437 of 2009 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8363 OF 2016 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 4697 OF 2008) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4438 of 2009 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4439 of 2009 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4440 of 2009 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4441 of 2009 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4442 of 2009 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4443 of 2009 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4444 of 2009 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4445 of 2009 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4446 of 2009 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8364 OF 2016 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 14522 OF 2010) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8365 OF 2016 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 14587 OF 2010) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8366 OF 2016 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 14594 OF 2010) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8367 OF 2016 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 14595 OF 2010) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8368 OF 2016 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 14679 OF 2010) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8370 OF 2016 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 14775 OF 2010) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8371 OF 2016 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 14785 OF 2010) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8372 OF 2016 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 14874 OF 2010) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8373 OF 2016 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 14877 OF 2010) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8374 OF 2016 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 14890 OF 2010) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8375 OF 2016 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 14933 OF 2010) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8376 OF 2016 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 14964 OF 2010) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8377 OF 2016 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 27017 OF 2011) A N D CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8378 OF 2016 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 27670 OF 2011)
Decided On : 29-08-2016
(2004) 2 SCC 651; (2007) 8 SCC 141; (2010) 5 SCC 335; (2004) 2 SCC 201 – Relied upon
(2003) 2 SCC 721 – Referred
(b) Service law – Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) – Withdrawal – Instantly, the scheme providing that once the option is given, the same cannot be withdrawn – Employees had a right to withdraw the offer during the validity period but not thereafter. (Para 21)
(c) Service law – VRS – Withdrawal – Scheme coming to an end on August 01, 2005 – Scheme not extended within currency or immediately thereafter – Corporation giving another opportunity to those who had not submitted the applications earlier, to submit the options by October 28, 2006 – There was no extension of the scheme – There was no scheme from August 02, 2005 to October 11, 2006 – Thus there were two schemes : July 01, 2005 to August 01, 2005, and October 12, 2006 to October 28, 2006 – All employees opting for VRS could withdraw but those of first set could do so only till August 01, 2005 – Similarly, employees of the second set could do so till October 28, 2006 – Employees withdrawing their offers within those dates would be entitled to reinstatement with back wages. (Para 23, 24)
Facts of the case:
As the appellant Corporation was running into losses, the State Government obtained permission from the Department of Road Transport & Highways of the Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport & Highways, Government of India for winding up of the appellant Corporation.
This permission was given by the Government of India on March 23, 2005 with direction to introduce VRS.
The respondents/employees in all these appeals had submitted their applications for voluntary retirement within the span of original period fixed under the Scheme, i.e. between July 01, 2005 and August 01, 2005.
Before their applications could be accepted, they had sought withdrawal of their option. However, requests for withdrawal of the options were made after August 01, 2005, i.e. after the expiry of the original Scheme. Their requests for withdrawal were not entertained and on the contrary applications for VRS submitted by these employees were accepted.
These respondents were, accordingly, relieved from the organisation on the afternoon of July 31, 2005.
All these employees approached the High Court of by filing respective writ petitions challenging the aforesaid action of the Corporation.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed these writ petitions.
The Division Bench decided all these appeals together and allowed them.
Finding of the Court:
Scheme being contractual in nature, offer to retire could be withdrawn during validity period. Impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
Result: Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14874 of 2010 qua Mr. Dinesh Chand Yadav and Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14594 of 2010 dismissed. All other appeals allowed
JUDGMENT
A.K. Sikri, J.
Leave granted in the special leave petitions.
2) The appellant Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short, the 'Corporation') is a public sector undertaking of the State of Madhya Pradesh and undertakes the work of carrying passengers from one place to another within and outside the State of Madhya Pradesh. As the appellant Corporation was running into losses, the State Government obtained permission from the Department of Road Transport & Highways of the Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport & Highways, Government of India for winding up of the appellant Corporation. This permission was given by the Government of India on March 23, 2005 with the following directions:
“The State Government shall ensure and be fully responsible for ensuring compliance of any existing/future orders passed by various court including Tribunal in any/all matters relating to MPSRTC. The State Government is also advised to safe guard the interest of employees of MPSRTC.”
3) Considering the closure of the Corporation, the Managing Director, vide S.No. 1452 (Karmik-2)Stha-B/2005, Order No. 28, introduced a Scheme called as Voluntary Retirement from Service (for short, 'VRS') for the employees of the Corporation. The said Scheme was to come into force from July 01, 2005. The relevant clauses, for the purpose of the instant appeals, are as under:
“4. Scheme: (i) All the candidates – employees, shall be permitted to give their option under this Scheme upto 1.8.2005 in Form (ka), along with in Form Kha. Nomination Form shall also have to be filled up. The Management shall have this right, that they may on the basis of the reasons to be given in writing, but without intimating any reason to the applicant, may accept the Voluntary Retirement from Service or reject, against which no provision of any appeal, relief shall be vested.
(ii) In the following matters, on receipt of the option of Voluntary Retirement from Service, on the basis of merits, decision shall be taken for consideration:
(ka) Whether against the employee concerned of the Corporation, Administrative action is either pending or is 'anudhyat'.
(Kha) Where, in any criminal court, any proceeding is pending, or in any Court, is in process before hand.
(ga) Employee, who in the normal course has given the resignation letter from the service of the Corporation, or has given.
(gha) Employee, who against the Corporation has initiated judicial action, or is going on, and till such action is not rejected or finished by the Court.
(kha) Application for option presented after dated 1.8.2005.
(iii) Under the Scheme, the option once given by the employee, shall not be permissible to be changed or taken back.
(iv) The Management, by accepting once, the Voluntary Retirement from Service of which employee has intimated to the employee, in this respect, then he shall not be entitled to employment on contract, or otherwise in service of the State Government, or in the Service of the Corporation, or in its attached Company, active Companies, i.e. the employee in this scheme, in the Public Service, as defined, shall not be entitled to ask for employment.
xx xx xx
As per clause 4(1) of the said Scheme, the option was to be given till 1.8.2005. In other words one month time was given to decide either to opt for VRS Scheme or not to opt.
Clause 4(ii) of the order clearly provided that “under the Scheme, the option once given by the employee, shall not be permissible to be changed or taken back.””
4) It becomes manifest from the provisions of the aforesaid Scheme, it provided certain conditions and also a specific form in which the application/option for VRS under the Scheme was to be made. Further, one of the conditions in the VRS Scheme was that once the application form for opting VRS is submitted, it would not be open to the applicant to withdraw the same. This Scheme was declared open on July 01, 2005 and was to last till August 01, 2005. It may also be stated at this stage that though in thi
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
