Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.- The petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for quashing the order dated 16th September, 2006 (Annexure-1), whereby the petitioner's application before the learned Industrial Tribunal, praying to drop the proceeding of Ref. Case NO.2 of 2003, has been rejected. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the entire Ref. Case NO.2 of 2003.

2. The concerned workmen were the employees of Tata Oil Mills Company limited, Jasidih (for short TOMCO). There was settlement between the Management and the workmen of TOMCO, regarding their pay scale and other benefits, on 5th June, 1987. The settlement was for three years to end by 4th June, 1990. TOMCO Employees Union terminated the settlement by letter dated 2nd April, 1990 during the continuation of the period of settlement. They placed demands for revision of pay scale etc., which was covered by the said settlement. The demand was in contravention of Section 19 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The production was stopped from May, 1993.

3. Subsequently, TOMCO merged with Hindustan Lever Limited (the petitioner) with effect from 20th December, 1994. The same was thereafter closed down in 1996. The Management had accepted voluntary retirement of all the workmen and made payment according to Voluntary Retirement Scheme (for short VRS) to all of them.

4. In the meantime, an industrial dispute was raised by the concerned workmen. The appropriate Government by notification dated 30th September, 1995 referred the dispute in the following term:-

"Whether the benefits of revised pay scale according of the demand letter dated 2nd April, 1990 of the TOMCO Employees Union, Jasidih being not given to the workmen of the then M/s Tata Oil Mills Company, Jasidih, now M/s Hindustan Lever Ltd., Jasidih is proper. If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to."

5. The petitioner objected to the said reference by petition dated 22nd June, 2006. The petitioner had contended that the proceeding is not maintainable and the same is without jurisdiction. The workmen had taken voluntary retirement and accepted the benefits of the same. They ceased to be the workmen of the company. There is no relationship of employer-employee between the management and the workmen. They are not the workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no scope for raising any dispute and the reference of the dispute is wholly without jurisdiction.

6. Learned Tribunal by the impugned order (Annexure-1) rejected the petitioner's application, holding that the question of maintainability was earlier raised. It was held that the said question shall be decided at the time of final adjudication along-with other issues involved in the reference.

7. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order is vitiated and illegal on account of non-application of mind on the facts and the provisions of law. Learned Tribunal failed to take into consideration that the workmen had accepted voluntary retirement and the benefits to be given under the VRS. Now they cannot challenge the same, by raising a dispute. The petitioner referred to and relied on the decisions in M/s Tata Iron Steel Co. Ltd. vs. Gyanendra Sahay [2005(1) JCR 525(Jhr.)][: 2005(3) JLJR 156] and Gyanendra Sahay vs. MIs Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. [(2006)5 SCC 759]

[: 2006(3) JLJR (SC)244]. It has been con contended that if an employee opts for voluntary retirement, he cannot at a later stage claim the benefits of pay revision etc. The reliance has been also placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in A.K. Bindal & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. [2003 Lab. I. C. 2140] and HEC Voluntary Retired Employees Welfare Society & Anr. vs. Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. & Ors. [JT 2006(3) SC 102] [: 2006(2) JLJR (SC) 172].

8. It has been submitted that in view of the said decisions of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court, the workmen having once opted for VRS cannot claim revision of pay. They also