IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that provisions of the Income Tax Act regarding voluntary retirement do not create enforceable contractual obligations between employers and employees.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep V. Marne, J.

1. Petitioners have filed this petition challenging the judgment and order dated 10 April 2003 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Thane dismissing Complaint (ULP) No.138 of 1998 filed by them challenging voluntary retirement granted to them, seeking their reinstatement in service or to pay correct amounts towards implementation of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme.

2. Respondent No.1-M/s. Balsara Hygenic Products Ltd. was a Company engaged in manufacture of basic chemicals, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics etc. and had one of its factories at Thane. It had employed about 180 employees in its Thane Factory. Respondent No.1 displayed Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) on its notice board on 12 June 1997 which was to come into effect on 20 June 1997. According to the Petitioner, only 8 to 10 employees voluntarily opted for the said scheme and majority of the Workmen were against the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and they were in the process of negotiating with the Management either for continuation of their employment or for offering more beneficial VRS terms. It is Petitioner’s contention that the same VRS was once again displayed by the Respondent- Management on 12 November 1997. It is Petitioner’s case that they were kept in dark about the exact features of the Scheme and were forced and compelled to opt for the Scheme by giving threats that upon refusal to opt for the Scheme, they would lose their entire service benefits. Accordingly, on 30 November 1997, all the Workers accepted VRS offered to them. The Management obtained receipts-cum-declaration from the concerned workers about acceptance of full and final entitlements under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Petitioners contend that after 10 to 15 days, they realised that they were cheated in the matter of implementation of VRS. They made representations to the Management. Without prejudice, it is Petitioner's contention that they were not paid correct amounts in accordance with the Scheme and were paid much lesser amounts than the promised amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. That the Workmen opted for voluntary retirement under a hope that each one of them would secure atleast Rs.5,00,000/- out of the Scheme, whereas, they were paid paltry sums ranging between Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/-. With the above broad grievances, Petitioners filed Complaint (ULP) No.138/1998 in Industrial Court, Thane. The complaint was resisted by Respondent-employer by filing Written Statement. Both the sides led evidence in support of their respective claims. After considering the pleadings, documentary and oral evidence, the Industrial Court has dismissed the Complaint by judgment and order dated 10 April 2003, which is subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

3. By order dated 15 June 2004, this Court has admitted the petition by denying any interim relief. By order dated 16 June 2009, this Court permitted Petitioners to implead, ‘M/s. Dabur India Ltd.’ (Dabur) as Respondent No.5 to the petition on the ground that Respondent No.1- Company amalgamated with Dabur. Originally, the petition was filed in the name of ‘Shri. Vijay Ramchandra Pandhare’ on behalf of 174 workers, whose list is appended at Exhibit-A to the petition. Civil Application No.1551 of 2018 was filed seeking substitution of the Original Petitioner by the names of 57 workers. By order dated 26 July 2018, this Court permitted addition of the said 57 workers as Respondent Nos. 2 to 59. By further order dated 11 January 2024, this Court permitted impleadment of another 7 workers as Respondent Nos.60 to 66. This is how petition is now being prosecuted by total 66 Petitioners.

4. Mr. Deshmukh, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners would submit that the Industrial Court has erred in dismissing the complaint filed by the Petitioners. He would submit that insertion of words ‘if lower than the amount as per clause No.1 (a or b) above’ is contrary to the provisions of Section 10 (10C) of the Income Tax