1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal by which order, the appeal filed by R-2 Union was allowed and the common judgment rendered by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Consumer), Mysore, was set aside. The Joint Registrar, in his common judgment, had allowed the disputes raised by the petitioners herein and set aside the resolution of R-2 Union dated 5.9.2002. By the said resolution, R-2 had resolved to retire the petitioners with effect from September 2002 pursuant to the petitioners having opted for the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS).

2. The facts are not in dispute inasmuch as the VRS being floated by R-2 Union by Circular dated 12.10.2001. The said circular also had indicated that the scheme would be brought into force and that would depend upon the approval of the Government . R-1 Government, by its order dated 2.07.2002, accorded approval to the VRS subject to certain conditions.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, though the petitioners were among those employees who had opted for the VRS introduced by R-2 by its circular dated 12.01.2001, as the petitioners had subsequently withdrew their applications for VRS and as the withdrawal by the petitioners was before the actual date from which the retirement was to take effect, the appellate tribunal could not have reversed the judgment of the Joint Registrar.

4. The further submission made is that the circular issued by R-2 on 12.10.2001, though had a condition to the effect that the applications submitted by the employees for opting for VRS cannot be recalled under any circumstances, in view of the said condition being absent in the Government Order dated 2.7.2002, it is, therefore, to be inferred that the Government did not approve the condition which gave no liberty to the applicants to withdraw their VRS applications.

5. It is, therefore, contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order of the KAT is unsustainable in law and it is also against the well settled principles of law laid down by the Apex Court. It is also argued in the same context that once the employee had opted out of VRS much before the actual date of retirement to take effect, his application, therefore, could not have been ignored and, as such, the resolution dated 5.9.2002 passed by R-2 resolving to retire the petitioners from September 2002 was also contrary to law and, rightly, the Joint Registrar had set aside the said resolution. Therefore, the impugned order of the KAT requires to be quashed.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for R-2 argued that the condition which precluded the petitioners from having a second thought over the option is a condition forming part of the contract between the petitioners on one hand and R-2 Co-operative Society on the other and, therefore, the Government could not have interfered with the said contractual obligation between the parties.

7. Secondly it is argued that, even in the Government Order dated 2.7.2002, there is no indication of the Government having rejected the condition imposed by the Union over the applicants for the VRS as regards the option being irreversible. The next contention put forward is that, the ground that is now sought to be urged by the petitioners’ counsel was not canvassed before the Joint Registrar when the disputes were raised at the first instance nor was it the subject matter of the decision before the KAT and, therefore, having regard to the nature of the relief sought in this petition viz., writ of certiorari, it is not open to the petitioners to canvass a new ground in this petition.

8. Yet another submission put forward is that the VRS had been framed by R-2 Union and having worked out the financial implications of permitting 52 employees to opt for VRS and the Government also having accorded sanction in respect of 52 applicants for VRS, it would be impermissible under such circumstances to perm