Does the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, have the jurisdiction to entertain the subject petitions, I.D.Nos.72 to 80 of 2007, 87 of 2007 and 14 to 19 of 2008, filed under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This is the short question that falls for consideration in this batch of cases.

2. The petitioners in the above mentioned IDs (arrayed as the second respondent in each of these writ petitions) were employees of Proagro Seed Company Private Limited. A Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) was floated by the said Company on 07.10.2002. Pursuant to this scheme, the petitioners in the IDs were relieved from service in November, 2002. It is an admitted fact that they all received the terminal benefits due to them under the scheme. The subject IDs were filed by them in September, 2007/ February, 2008 alleging that all the employees were coerced and forced to sign the documents relating to the VRS. They stated that there were more than 150 employees working in the Company and all the workers from Grade-I to Grade-IV were illegally retrenched under the guise of the VRS. They claimed entitlement to retrenchment compensation and alleged that they were illegally retrenched by introducing a farce VRS. They also attacked the terms and conditions of the VRS and sought a declaration that the same was non est in the eye of law, illegal, unlawful and liable to be set aside. They prayed for a direction to reinstate them in service with full back wages, attendant benefits and continuity of service. The Labour Court ordered notice on the IDs.

3. Pertinent to note, Proagro Seed Company Private Limited was acquired by the Bayer Group and thereafter, upon amalgamation of the Company with Hybrid Rice International Private Limited, a new Company named Bayer Bio Science Private Limited came into existence on 18.12.2006. This new Company was arrayed as the respondent in all the IDs and is presently the petitioner before this Court. It is its case that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the IDs under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, the Act of 1947), on grounds more than one. According to the petitioner Company, the petitioners in the IDs ceased to be workmen within the meaning of Section-2(s) of the Act of 1947 and therefore had no right to avail the remedy under Section 2-A(2) thereof. Secondly, as the said provision empowered the Labour Court to entertain individual disputes arising out of the termination, retrenchment, dismissal or discharge of an individual workman, the petitioner Company asserted that it had no application to the collective claim put forth by the petitioners in the IDs that their retirement under the VRS amounted to illegal retrenchment. The petitioner Company also pointed out the delay on the part of the petitioners in the IDs in raising the dispute, as they had received the benefits under the VRS long ago. The petitioner Company therefore sought a writ of prohibition in each of these cases to restrain the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, from proceeding further with the subject IDs.

4. This Court by way of interim orders, which were thereafter made absolute, stayed further proceedings in the IDs.

5. The petitioners in the IDs/second respondents in these writ petitions filed individual counters contesting the claim of the petitioner Company that their IDs under Section 2-A(2) of the Act of 1947 would not lie. They reiterated that all the employees of Proagro Seed Company Private Limited were coerced and forced to sign the documents relating to the VRS and that the same amounted to illegal retrenchment. They stated that they had approached the Assistant Commissioner of Labour Conciliation Officer, aggrieved by the said illegal act of the Company, but they were informed that they could approach the Labour Court as per law for redressal of their grievance. They further claimed that they met with the same response when they approached the Government. They therefore justified the inv