Back
2018 Supreme(HP) 1077
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
Federal Mogul Bearing India Limited - Appellant
Versus
State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. - Respondents
CWP No. 1396 of 2016
Decided On : 05-01-2018
J.S Guleria, Rahul Mahajan, V.D Khidtta, Advocates for the appearing parties.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an employee who has accepted benefits under a voluntary retirement scheme and entered into a settlement acknowledging no further claims is estopped from raising any further demand.
Headnote:
VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHEME - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 2-A - Companies Act, 1956 - The judgment discusses the legal provisions related to voluntary retirement schemes, the rights and obligations of employees and employers, and the principle of estoppel. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the voluntary retirement scheme and the principle of estoppel.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Public Limited Company, implemented a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) for its workers. Respondent No.3 initially accepted the benefits under the VRS but later raised a demand notice under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, claiming inadequate benefits and illegal termination.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent, having accepted the benefits under the VRS and having entered into a settlement acknowledging no further claims, was estopped from raising any further demand. The court also held that the reference made by the Joint Labour Commissioner was neither competent nor maintainable.
Issues: The issues involved the competency and maintainability of the reference made by the Joint Labour Commissioner, the rights of the employee under the VRS, and the principle of estoppel.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle of estoppel and the interpretation of voluntary retirement schemes to conclude that the respondent was precluded from raising any further demand after accepting the benefits under the VRS and entering into a settlement.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, quashed the reference made by the Joint Labour Commissioner, and held that the notification for the reference was neither competent nor maintainable.
JUDGMENT
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J —The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the notification No.11- 2/93 (Lab.) ID/2015-Solan (Annexure P-1) made by the Joint Labour Commissioner on 19.12.2015 vide which he has made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court which, according to the petitioner, is neither competent nor maintainable.
2. The petitioner-Company is a Public Limited Company duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It prepared a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (''VRS'') that was made applicable to all workers whose names were on the muster-roll of the petitioner-Company as on 02.04.2009 and had attained the age of 40 years or had put in continuance service of 10 years.
3. Respondent No.3 vide his application dated 18.04.2009 requested that the benefit under the Scheme be extended to him. The petitionerCompany accepted the request by extending the benefit of the Scheme whereby it paid a sum of Rs.3, 00, 000/- towards Voluntary Retirement Benefits and Rs.1, 09, 409/- towards gratuity, annual bonus un-availed earned leave, legal statutory dues and wages etc. A settlement to this effect was entered into vide Annexure P-4. However, it appears that respondent No.3 thereafter served a demand notice under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short ''Act'') on the petitioner-Company alleging therein that he had been forced to take the benefit under the ''VRS'' and he has been illegally terminated from service and further the benefits given under the ''VRS'' were inadequate.
4. The petitioner-Company filed reply wherein it was submitted that the request for voluntary retirement was infact made by respondent No.3 and the same was accepted by the Company by paying all due and admissible amounts to respondent No.3 and, therefore, notice was nothing but an abuse of process of law and, therefore, be dropped. The Conciliation Officer sent his failure report to the Labour Commissioner, who, in turn, made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court which reads thus:-
"Whether voluntary retirement taken as per Voluntary Retirement Scheme dated 2.4.2009 by Hem Raj Rana S/O Sh.Hoshiyar Singh Rana, operator from the management of M/S Federal Mogul Bearing India Limited, Plot No.5, Sector-2, Parwanoo, District Solan, H.P. is legally maintainable and justified? If not to what back wages, service benefit and relief the above named worker is entitled to from the above employer/management? If not what are its legal effects?"
5. This reference was assailed by the petitioner by filing CWP No.8024 of 2010 which was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 22.09.2011 and the reference made by the Labour Commissioner was quashed and set aside. Even the review filed by respondent No.3 by way of Civil Review Petition No.191 of 2011 against the aforesaid judgment came to be dismissed on 03.09.2012.
6. It is thereafter that respondent No.3 again raised a demand under Section 2-A of the Act vide demand notice dated 01.04.2013 wherein he claimed the wages for four months from July, 2008 till October, 2008, service benefits, payment for earned leave, medical gratuity etc. in terms of the ''VRS'' and the settlement and requested that the same be paid to him along with interest.
7. The petitioner filed reply wherein it submitted that the dispute as preferred by the respondent was neither competent nor maintainable under Section 2-A of the Act on the ground that the said dispute can only be raised where the employee was discharged, dismissed, retrenched or otherwise terminated. It was further contended that the demand notice was otherwise not maintainable as the earlier demand notice had already been quashed and set aside by this Court vide judgment dated 22.09.2011 and even the review petition filed against the same by respondent No.3 had also been dismissed vide judgment dated 03.09.2012. In addition thereto, it was also averred that respondent No.3 after having accepted the benefits under the ''VRS'' could not approba
