A company is not obligated to accept an employee's application for a VRS and unauthorized absence from work for more than a year is a serious misconduct that justifies dismissal.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Writ petition No.2102 of 2006 is filed by the employee challenging the order dated 20th July 2004 passed by the 7th Labour Court, Mumbai in complaint (ULP) No.236 of 1994 directing the respondent company to reinstate the petitioner original complainant with continuity of service but without back wages or they can pay lumpsum compensation of Rs. 2 lacs to the petitioner complainant excluding his legal dues. The same order is challenged by the respondent company by preferring cross writ petition No.2272 of 2006. The issues involved in both these petitions are same. Hence, this is a common order.

2. For the sake of convenience, the employee Atul Pansare hereinafter will be referred to as the “petitioner” and the Hindustan Lever Ltd. as the “respondent”.

3. The petitioner joined the respondent company on 10th October 1982 as an Instrumentation Mechanic. After some time, the respondent company declared lockout on 25th June 1988 which continued upto 26th June 1989. During the period of lockout, the Government had intervened. Therefore, the respondent company offered Social Security Rehabilitation Package (SSRP) Scheme to the employees. The respondent company had sent circulars dated 8th March 1989 and 11th April 1989 to all the workers including the petitioner for acceptance of the said SSRP Scheme. When the lock out was lifted at the instance of the State Government, the employees were required to sign individual settlements. In the said settlement, clause No.3 refers to the SSRP Scheme. Some of the employees received the benefit of the said scheme.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner, on 27th July 1989 reported to work after signing individual settlement. Thereafter, due to health problem, the petitioner applied for sick leave on 2nd August 1989. Thereafter, he submitted letter dated 12th August 1989 for opting SSRP scheme. In reply to the said letter, the respondent company, by their letter dated 6th August 1989 rejected the petitioner’s application for SSRP scheme on the ground that it is not possible to the respondent company to relieve the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner, by his letter dated 7th August 1989 again requested the respondent company to accept his request for SSRP scheme. In similar way, again the petitioner had forwarded a letter dated 1st September 1989. Thereafter, the respondent company, once again rejected the petitioner’s request for SSRP scheme by letter dated 9th September 1989. In spite of that, the petitioner, by his letter dated 19th September 1989, 9th October 1989, 23rd October 1989 again requested the respondent company to give him benefit of SSRP scheme. At the same time, the petitioner asked leave on account of ill health and along with the leave application, he had forwarded a medical certificate. In reply to these letters, the respondent company, by their letter dated 17th November 1989 again declined the petitioner’s request for SSRP scheme. Therefore, the petitioner filed complaint (ULP) No.1404 of 1989 on 23rd November 1989 for directing the respondent to grant benefit of SSRP scheme. In that complaint, the petitioner made following prayers.

“(a) That complainant be permitted to resign and avail of all the benefits of the S.S.R.P. Scheme.

(b) That the complainant be permitted not to report for duty and no action be taken against him for the same.

(c) Pending hearing and final disposal of this complaint that the complainant be permitted not to report for duty and no action shall be taken by the Respondent against the complainant for the same.”

5. Thereafter, the respondent company, by their letter dated 24th May 1990 called upon the petitioner to resume the duties forthwith, failing which they would initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Thereafter the respondent company issued show cause notice dated 26th May 1990 stating that the petitioner was absent from duty without leave from 3rd August 1989 i.e. for more than