( 1 ) THE petitioner was an employee of the Gujarat Small Industries corporation Limited (hereafter referred as the Corporation or the respondent-Corporation) which is a Government Company. The petitioner who joined as a clerk was holding the post of Assistant when the Corporation had floated a scheme for voluntary retirement in the year 1993. The petitioner accepted the offer contained in the said scheme and was accordingly permitted to voluntarily retire w. e. f. October 21, 1993. He was paid a total amount of Rs. 1,38,834/- towards all his dues including the amount of Rs. 1,03,680/- being the amount of salary for 30 months as per the scheme of voluntary retirement. Thereafter the respondent Corporation had given future monetary benefits to its employees such as additional D. A. from July 1, 1993, Interim Relief of Rs. 100/- per month w. e. f. September 16, 1993 and L. T. C. encashment. The decision of the Corporation to give its then existing employees the aforesaid benefits were taken in 1994 and 1995. Upon coming to learn about the aforesaid retrospective benefits given to its existing employees, the petitioner submitted his representations for the said benefits till the date of his voluntary retirement till October 21, 1993. The present petition challenges the decision of the respondent-Corporation to reject the said representations.

( 2 ) THE petitioner had earlier filed Special Civil Application No. 984 of 1996 praying for the following reliefs: (A) to pay all legal dues entitled by the petitioner, forthwith. (B) to direct the respondent to give explanation why they have harassed the petitioner during his tenure of service. (C) to direct the respondent, their agents and servants to pay a Special Cost of Rs. 1 lac with 21% interest to the petitioner. (D) to pass the order to personally remain present before this Hon. Court. (E) be pleased to grant any other relief or remedy as deemed just and proper by your Lordships. After hearing the petitioner, this Court passed order dated February 5, 1996 observing that for the claims in question the petitioner will have to go to the Labour Court where on leading the evidence the Court will decide as to whether he is entitled to these amounts and if so, to what extent. The petitioner therefore sought to withdraw that petition and the petition was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

( 3 ) THEREAFTER the petitioner has filed the present petition contending that the earlier petition was ambiguous and, therefore, this Court had rejected the said petition on the ground that the petitioner could move the Labour Court and, therefore, the petition was withdrawn. The petitioner has submitted that the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under section 33 (C) (2) can be invoked when the claim is already adjudicated upon but disputed question or unadjudicated claim cannot be agitated under the said provisions.

( 4 ) IN my view, it is difficult to distinguish the previous order of this Court in this manner, but now that the petition is already admitted and has reached final hearing today, i have considered the petitioners grievance on merits.

( 5 ) ON merits, it appears that the respondent-Corporation had floated the scheme of voluntary retirement as per the circular dated September 29, 1993 and about 90 employees including the petitioner took benefit of the said scheme and opted for voluntary retirement with all the benefits flowing from the said scheme. As is well-known by now, employers in the private sector as well as public sector including Govt. Companies have been resorting to this policy of "golden handshake" in order to solve the problem of overstaffing and, therefore, the terms offered to the employees intending to exit under such voluntary retirement schemes are usually more generous than the benefits which the employees would get while taking voluntary retirement in the normal course. Such schemes, are floated in order to induce the employees to opt for voluntary retireme