S.J. Vazifdar, J.

The Petitioner has challenged the order of the Industrial Tribunal, answering the Reference partly in the affirmative by granting demand No. 4 of the Respondents. By the said order, the Petitioner is directed to pay the workmen the difference in commuted amounts paid to them as lump-sum and the amount as shown in the annexure to the Award due to them under VRS-MUMBAI-2001 and the Settlement dated December 10, 2010 with eighteen percent interest from the date the amount was due till the date of realisation thereof. Respondent No. 2 is the learned Member of the Industrial Tribunal who has passed the Award impugned in the writ petition. The reference in this judgment to the Respondents is, therefore, limited to Respondent No. 1.

2. It is not necessary to refer to the various proceedings which led to the Award challenged in this writ petition. Suffice it to note that the Petitioner had raised preliminary issues regarding the maintainability of the Reference. By Award Part-I dated September 30, 2006 the Tribunal rejected the preliminary objection. The Petitioner challenged the same by filing Writ Petition No. 3110/2006. The same was dismissed by an order and judgment dated March 21, 2007. The Petitioner filed Appeal No. 336/2007 against the said judgment. The petition has been admitted, but no interim relief’s have been granted. The Division Bench directed the Industrial Tribunal to hear the entire Reference expeditiously and observed that the admission of the Appeal would in no way influence the view of the Industrial Tribunal on the merits of the case. It is in these circumstances that the Industrial Tribunal passed Award-Part II dated January 12, 2009 which is challenged in the present writ petition.

3. The Award warrants no interference. The questions raised are predominantly on facts. Even the construction of the documents which fall for consideration is based predominantly on facts, and an appreciation of the evidence. While I find no reason to interfere with the Award, I will add to the reasons furnished by the learned Member. The Award also can be upheld on a different approach to the facts.

4. It is necessary to state the facts leading to the said two documents only briefly.

5. The Industrial relations between the parties had not been cordial. There were serious differences which resulted in numerous litigations between the parties. While there was discontent amongst the employees, the management also considered these facts as an obstacle in the way of bringing about a more productive and cost-effective way of working. Fortunately, the parties decided to resolve these differences. The Petitioner found it necessary to reconstruct its operations to make its establishment commercially viable in view of the changed financial and commercial environment brought about, inter alia, by globalisation and the entry into the market of overseas competitors operating at extremely thin margins.

6(A) During the course of negotiations, there ensued a exchange of drafts containing various proposals. The main effect thereof was the offer by the Petitioner of a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) to its employees. Discussions/negotiations in this regard took place, inter alia, on November 2, 2001 The terms of the v. were minuted. Drafts were exchanged. While it is neither necessary nor relevant to refer to the terms and conditions, it is necessary to note that the draft letter that was proposed to be signed by the employees contained the statement:

I also agree to opt for the VRS-MUMBAI-2001 announced by the Company.

(B) Similarly, a draft MOU was also prepared on November 21, 2010. This draft also required the employees who opted for the v. to execute a letter which contained, inter alia, a statement similar to the one in the letter annexed to the draft MOU of November 2, 2010 set out above.

(C) By a notice dated November 30, 2001 a meeting was convened on December 5, 2001 From the affidavit in lieu of the examination in chi