S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.

In all these matters as a common question of law is involved and similar order is under challenge, they were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The appellants were the workmen of Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. (IPCL), now amalgamated with Reliance Industries Ltd. (RIL) (hereinafter referred to as 'the management').

3. The IPCL, a Government of India Undertaking, divested its equity share capital of 46.64% to Reliance Industries Ltd. who took over the management. The management came out with a Voluntary Separation Scheme (hereinafter referred to as 'the VSS') on 6.3.2007. The applications were to be filed on 20.3.2007 and about 2400 employees have chosen to apply for VSS within last two days i.e. 19.3.2007 and 20.3.2007. According to the workmen, having realized the mistake on the late evening of 20.3.2007, and as such applications were filed because of the pressurize tactics adopted by the management, many of the workmen submitted applications recalling their request for VSS. Withdrawal of VSS applications in writing were filed on 21.3.2007 and thereafter, but before the actual cessation of services. As, according to the workmen, the management forcefully pressurized the workmen and got them retired under the VSS, they raised an industrial dispute. The Assistant Labour Commissioner & Conciliation Officer, Vadodara by order dated 11.4.2008 refused to make a reference u/s 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the ID Act' for short) on the ground that after obtaining the benefits of Voluntary Retirement Scheme by the applicants, as there is no relationship of employer and employee and as they are not included in the definition of workman/employee and as there is no any dispute in existence, they do not call for adjudication qua any of the matters.

The aforesaid decision dated 11.4.2008 was challenged by a number of workmen by filing their respective writ petitions, which having dismissed, the present appeals have been preferred against the common judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 13.3.2009.

4. According to the workmen - appellants, the management wanted to drive out all the permanent employees of IPCL with a view to employ the labour contract to get the work done of a permanent nature, the Voluntary Separation Scheme was floated on 6.3.2007. Such strategy of the management is against the provisions of the Labour Contract (Regulation and Prohibition) Act, 1970. The management had adopted pressurize tactics and coercive method by threatening the employees that in case the employees do not opt to apply for Voluntary Separation Scheme, they will be thrown to Jamnagar Plant by way of transfer or they would be retrenched from the employment. In support of such submission, reliance has been placed on the circulars at Annexures - C, D and D1 attached in the paper book. It is stated that the employees were threatened to accept the VSS which was also reported in different newspapers enclosed as Annexures E1 to E5; pressurize tactics were adopted by the management, which was also highlighted in the Gujarat Assembly, as also before the State Government.

5. Further case of the workmen is that because of pressurizing methods, about 2400 employees had chosen to apply for VSS within last two days, but the majority of them having realized their mistake that it was by way of pressure, on late evening of 20.3.2007 they had orally withdrawn their request for Voluntary Retirement Scheme followed by the written applications for withdrawal of the option for retirement filed on 21.3.2007, 22.3.2007 and onwards, but prior to the voluntary retirement. It is alleged that the action of the management of not accepting the subsequent request of withdrawal of their option for voluntary retirement and forcing them to retire from 1.4.2007 is a fraud committed by the management with ulterior motive to frustrate the applications of withdrawal and thus an industrial dispute having cropped up,