One who seeks equity must do equity - Employees cannot retain benefits received under a Voluntary Retirement Scheme if they challenge the scheme after accepting the benefits.

1. Rule in all the Writ Petitions. Having regard to the nature of challenge raised heard forthwith by the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the identical orders dated 20.10.2015 passed by the Learned Member of the Industrial Court, Pune. By the said orders, the Revision Applications filed by the Petitioners above named came to be dismissed and resultantly, the orders dated 18.07.2014 passed by the Learned Judge of the Labour Court allowing the application Exh.C4 and thereby directing the Petitioners to deposit the amount which was paid to them under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme came to be confirmed.

3. Since the above Petitions involve common facts and raise the identical challenge, by consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties, Writ Petition No.1811 of 2016 is treated as the lead matter. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No.1811 of 2016 as also the Petitioners in the companion Petitions would be referred to as such and the Respondents herein would be referred to as the Respondents.

4. The facts giving rise to the filing of the above Writ Petition No. 1811 of 2016 can in brief be stated thus :

The Petitioner Smt. Phulabai was working with the Respondent No.1 company and had worked as such for around 15 years. The Respondent No.1 announced a Voluntary Retirement Scheme in an around September 2008. Under the said Voluntary Retirement Scheme, the employees who would opt for it were granted graded payment in terms of the number of years of service they had put in. The employees of the Respondent No.1 were required to opt for the scheme, which was kept open between 23.09.2008 to 31.10.2008. The Petitioner Smt. Phulabai by her letter dated 20.10.2008 opted for the said scheme. The said letter of Smt. Phulabai was acted upon by the Respondent No.1 and by letter dated 31.10.2008 the acceptance of the Respondent No.1 was communicated to the said Smt. Phulabai. The Petitioners in the companion matters also opted for the said scheme at the same contemporaneous time and the said Petitioners were also conveyed the acceptance by the Respondent No.1 in the same manner as the said Smt. Phulabai. The amount payable to the said Smt. Phulabai and the Petitioners in the companion Petitions is tabulated hereinunder for the sake of ready reference.

Sr. No.	Writ Petition No.	Name of the Petitioner	Amount
1	1831 of 2016	Sunil Kumbhar	Rs.5,93,971/-
2	519 of 2016	Kisan Kalate	Rs.15,16,645/-
3	1798 of 2016	Dnyaneshwar Kalapure	Rs.15,19,847/-
4	1811 of 2016	Phulabai Pawar	Rs.6,88,979/-
5	2722 of 2016	Rajaram Nikam	Rs.13,65,584/-
6	2753 of 2016	Shashikant Mane	Rs.7,59,002/-
7	2988 of 2016	Machindra Borhade	Rs.19,04,181/-
8	2989 of 2016	Bhimraga Birajdar	Rs.9,50,226/-
9	2994 of 2016	Suresh Sonwal	Rs.13,92,807/-
10	3042 of 2016	Narayan Mankar	Rs.17,12,687/-
11	3605 of 2016	Vinayak Borkar	Rs.10,66,539/-
12	3607 of 2016	Hansabai Kolhe	Rs.9,63,340/-
13	3615 of 2016	Praveenkumar Patel	Rs.8,70,648/-
14	3616 of 2016	Balkrishna Gholap	Rs.8,65,512/-
15	3617 of 2016	Deelip Mankar	Rs.12,85,195/-

The said amount was paid by cheques to the said Smt. Phulabai and the Petitioners in the companion Petitions in about four installments from October 2008. The Petitioner Smt. Phulabai as also the other Petitioners accepted the said four installments paid by cheque. The Respondent No.1 thereafter came out with another Voluntary Retirement Scheme in the year 2009, though a graded payment similarly to the one envisaged under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2008 was offered under the said Scheme of 2009, the financial benefits were slightly higher than the Voluntary Retirement Sche