Employees cannot challenge the legality of a Voluntary Retirement Scheme after accepting its benefits and failing to raise objections before any authority.

ORDER :

(A.S. SUPEHIA, J.)

1. With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matters are ordered to be taken-up for final disposal today.

2. Present appeals emanate from the judgment dated 8^th October, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the writ petitions filed by the appellants-employees seeking quashing and setting aside the order dated 28^th March, 2022 passed in Reference (LCB) Case no.59 of 2011 passed by the Labour Court, Gandhidham, Kachchh, whereby the Labour Court has rejected the reference proceedings. The reference proceedings emanates from the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) dated 8^th July, 2009.

3. Mr. Krishnan M. Ghavariya, learned advocate for the appellants at the outset has submitted that the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge confirming the orders dated 28^th March, 2022 passed by the Labour Court are required to be quashed and set aside as the vital aspect about the appellants – employees having been duped by the respondent company in opting for voluntary retirement under the scheme has not been appreciated in its true perspective. While referring to the scheme, which stems-out of the settlement under Section 2(p) read with section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 dated 8^th July, 2009, it is submitted that the aforesaid settlement is illegal and in violation of Rule 62 of the Industrial Dispute (Gujarat) Rules, 1996 (the Rules) and hence the Voluntary Retirement Scheme promulgated by the respondent company is also illegal. It is submitted that as a consequence thereof the respondent- company should not have accepted their voluntary retirement. While referring to the cross-examination of the Manager of the respondent-company it is submitted that the respondent has accepted that the Rule 62 (4) of the Rules has been violated. Thus, it is submitted that the award passed by the Labour Court and the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge confirming such award are required to be quashed and set aside.

Mr. Ghavariya, learned advocate for the appellants, in support of his submissions, has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Nar Singh Pal Vs. Union of India reported in 2000 (3) SCC 588 and also in the case of Workmen of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Vs. Management of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd., reported in 1969 (3) SCC 302.

4. Per contra, Mr. Gandhi, learned advocate appearing for the respondent-company at the outset has submitted that the order passed by the Labour Court as confirmed by the learned Single Judge, may not be interfered with as the appellants – employees, after accepting the benefits arising from the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, raised the dispute after a period of almost 2 years. It is submitted that the employees have in fact agreed upon the settlement, which was under Section 2(p) read with section 18(1) of the I. D. Act, and there was full compliance of the Rule 62 of the Rules.

4.1 Mr. Gandhi, learned advocate for the respondent company has also referred to the applications filed by the appellants – employees pursuant to the VRS and has submitted that after their applications were accepted, they were also paid the consequential benefits and hence, it is urged that the award passed by the Labour Court could not be interfered as the same is precisely passed.

5. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

6. The established facts from the pleadings are that the respondent company entered into settlement under the provisions of Section 2(p) read with section 18(1) of the I.D. Act, 1947 on 8^th July, 2009. The respondent company promulgated the Voluntary Retirement Scheme on 8^th July, 2009. The period for operation, as per the said scheme, was from 8^th July, 2009 to 13^th July, 2009. The said provision stipulating period of operation is as under :

PERIOD OF OPERATION

“The scheme will come in force with immediate effect and will remain open for receiving the applications from the da