ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. M.A. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 30.10.2009 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in M.J. Case No. 4 of 2007, by which the claim of the petitioner for 100 months wages in the basic wages of Rs. 3368/- per month and dearness allowances plus V.D.A. amounting to Rs. 1189/- per month in place of 60 months wages has been rejected.

3. The petitioner had submitted a statement of demand before the competent authority of the respondent-company and subsequently had filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act in which it has been stated that he was employed in the respondent-company from 21.04.1989 in the sheerer opener department. It has been stated that under threat, coercion and duress the petitioner was forced to accept the Voluntary Retirement Scheme even though the petitioner had a few years of service left as per the contract of employment under the Certified Standing Orders. It has also been claimed that at the time of cessation of service the petitioner was drawing a basic wage of Rs. 3368/- per month and DA + VDA @ Rs. 1189/- per month besides other allowances and benefits. The petitioner has further claimed in his application that he was entitled to receive the difference of monetary benefits on the basis of a pre-existing right.

4. The management had filed its written statement in which it was revealed that it is totally wrong on the part of the petitioner to claim that the Voluntary Retirement Scheme was accepted by him under compelling situation and also under duress. It has been stated that the Hot Dip Plant Unit of the respondent had become economically unviable and prior to its closure with effect from 14.10.1999 a Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 1999 was introduced and those workmen of Hot Dip Mills who did not opt for the Voluntary Retirement Scheme had to be retrenched and 268 retrenched workmen had filed C.W.J.C. No. 2933 of 2000 and by order dated 14.08.2002 the benefits were extended and it was confined only with respect to the 268 retrenched workmen. The management further claims that since the petitioner is not a retrenched worker and had already taken voluntary retirement under the scheme of 1998 he is not entitled to any difference of emoluments as has been claimed by him.

5. It has been stated by Mr. M.A. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner that the Voluntary Retirement Scheme through which the petitioner was paid the monetary benefits was a forcible act on the part of the company as through threat and duress the petitioner was made to accept voluntary retirement under the said scheme. It has further been submitted that the discrimination would be evident from the fact that the conditions of the 1999 Voluntary Retirement Scheme of the company was in contrast to the conditions in the scheme floated in 1998 and therefore the petitioner who was an employee of the respondent-company had a legal and vested right to be paid the difference of emoluments arising out of the 1998 scheme and the 1999 scheme.

6. Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has made his initial thrust of argument with respect to the maintainability of the application preferred under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It has been submitted that since on account of the acceptance of the voluntary retirement of the petitioner in the year 1998 there was no employer employee relationship between the respondent-management and the petitioner and therefore the application preferred under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was rightly held to be not maintainable. It has further been submitted that if the petitioner was aggrieved with respect to the alleged threat and coercion imposed upon him by the management the petitioner could have raised his grievance earlier rat