Acceptance of benefits under a Voluntary Retirement Scheme precludes subsequent claims of coercion or reinstatement.

JUDGMENT :

M.K. THAKKER, J.

1. This petition is filed under article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:

“19......

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to allow this Special Civil Application by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the order dated 28.03.2002 passed in Reference (LCB) Case No. 54 of 2011 passed by the Learned Labour Court Gandhidham-Kutch in the interest of justice.”

2. Brief facts arising for the consideration is that petitioner was appointed in the year 1989 as a casual worker and he renders his service on that post up to 31.01.1992, thereafter, the petitioner was posted on a permanent post of Survey Assistant-Grade II. He was paid monthly salary of Rs. 16,450/- on 09.07.2009. The respondent warned the petitioner as well as other employees that branch of company is going to shut down and therefore, if the workmen wants to settle their claims, then they may settle else they would be terminated from the service on account of impending closure. There are 22 employees who applied for Voluntary Retirement Scheme and they have been paid a lumpsum amount of Rs. 3,97,000/- towards compensation. Thereafter, neither the company nor the branch was shut down , therefore request was made to the management to consider the case of the petitioner for reinstatement in service.

3. On 25.02.2011 a legal notice was sent through advocate and demand was raised to reinstate the workmen in the service with continuity as well as full back wages. The response was given to the legal notice by the respondent on 28.03.2011 contending that the petitioner had on his own applied for the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and has been paid dues therefore, no question arise for reinstatement in the service. Petitioner thereafter, approached the labour court, Gandhidham Kachchh by filing the reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the “ID Act”) being Reference (LCB) No. 54 of 2011 claiming reinstatement in the service to its original post with all the consequential benefits. Learned labour court after scrutinizing the evidence and the submissions has rejected the reference filed by the petitioner vide award dated 28.03.2022 which is subject matter of challenge before this Court.

4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Krishnan Ghavariya for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Nisarg Desai for the respondent.

4.1. Learned advocate Mr. Ghavariya for the petitioner submits that on 09.07.2009 petitioner and other workmen were warned that branch of the company is going to close and workmen should claim their dues by way of settlement and opt for Voluntary Retirement Scheme. As the petitioners were under the impression that services would be terminated without paying a single penny, therefore, they agreed to be a part of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. It is further submitted that under pressure of the respondent-company the workmen opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme under the impression that if the same is not obtained then they would be deprived from their legal dues and would be terminated from the services. Learned advocate Mr. Ghavariya submits that after the termination of the petitioner, fresh appointments were made and on knowledge of the same a notice came to be issued to the company on 25.02.2011.

4.2. Learned advocate Mr. Ghavariya submits that settlement scheme was signed by the Union and therefore, same would not bind to the petitioner, as the petitioner was not a part to the same settlement. Learned advocate Mr. Ghavariya submits that the application which was prayed for production of the muster roll of the employees who were appointed from 1985 to 2013 was ordered in favour of the petitioner the respondent had produced only part of the muster roll which is not in accordance with the order passed by the learned labour court. The entire muster roll were not produced before the learned labour court, however, learned la