Back
2008 Supreme(Mad) 2005
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. DHANAPALAN
EID Parry (India) Ltd.,
Versus
M.N. Padmanabhan & Another
WRIT APPEAL No.698 OF 2001
Decided on : 26-06-2008
For the Appellant :Mr. A.L. Somayaji, Senior Counsel, Mr. T.S. Gopalan & Co., Advocate.
For the Respondents: R1, R.N. Amarnath, R2, M. Dhandapani, Spl. Govt. Pleader.
Once an employee accepts the benefits of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, their rights as employees come to an end and they cannot reassert their rights or claims for further benefits.
Headnote:
Voluntary Retirement Scheme - Industrial Disputes - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 2-A, Section 18(1) - A.K. Bindal and Another v. Union of India and Others, 2003 (5) Supreme Court Cases 163; An unreported Division Bench decision of this Court in W.A.No.702 of 2001, dated 03.07.2007; Everstee v. District Labour Officer, 1999 (2) LLJ 851 - The court discussed the implications of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and the employee's rights after opting for the scheme. The court emphasized that once the employee accepts the benefits of the scheme, their rights as employees come to an end and they cannot reassert their rights or claims for further benefits.
Fact of the Case:
The first respondent, a clerk at the appellant company, opted for the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) and received the benefits. Subsequently, he claimed that the VRS was obtained under coercion and sought pension benefits. The second respondent dismissed his claim, leading to a writ petition which was allowed by a learned single Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the first respondent, having opted for VRS and accepted the benefits, could not reassert his rights or claims for further benefits. The court held that there was no dispute existing to raise a claim under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Issues: The main issue was whether the first respondent, after opting for VRS and accepting the benefits, could claim further benefits such as pension. Another issue was whether there existed a dispute under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once the employee accepts the benefits of the VRS, their rights as employees come to an end and they cannot reassert their rights or claims for further benefits. The court also emphasized that there was no dispute existing to raise a claim under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Final Decision: The Writ Appeal was allowed, setting aside the order of the learned single Judge. No costs were awarded, and the connected C.M.P.No.6151 of 2001 was closed.
V. Dhanapalan, J.
Appellant/management has filed this appeal aggrieved over the order, dated 112. 2000, passed by a learned single Judge in W.P.No.2573 of 1994, whereby the order of the second respondent, in rejecting the first respondent/workmans application for making a reference under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was set aside.
2. According to the first respondent/workman, he joined service in the appellant company as a Clerk on 18.03.1959 and after working at various places, he was lastly posted at Cuddalore Branch in the Farms Inputs Division; he was a member of E.I.D.Parry Staff Association, a registered trade union; he put in 34 years of service; there was a scheme called Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) introduced by the appellant on 01.06.1993, which was available to the employees, who had completed 10 years of service or 40 years of age, which scheme provided for financial assistance besides normal terminal benefits to employees, who opted to leave the service under the Scheme; through a letter, dated 13.07.1993, he opted for the said Scheme; on 21.07.1993, a settlement between him and the appellant was reached under Section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947, and the payments towards gratuity, provident fund etc., were made to him by the appellant; thereafter, he sent a letter, dated 21.07.1993, to the appellant, alleging that the application for VRS was obtained under coercion and he was deprived of pension; hence, he raised an industrial dispute under Section 2-A of the Act before the second respondent, claiming that the alleged settlement was not legal and that he was coerced to sign such a settlement and, therefore, he could not be denied pension; the second respondent, by his order dated 03.01.1994, dismissed his claim, stating that the dispute raised by him did not come within the purview of Section 2-A, aggrieved over which, he filed the Writ Petition, which was allowed by a learned single Judge.
3. The appellant, who was the second respondent in the Writ Petition, filed a counter, stating that the first respondent herein was a Clerk under the management; there was a Scheme called VRS put up by the appellant on 01.06.1993, which was available to the first respondent; agreeing to the terms of the Scheme, the first respondent opted for the same; accordingly, the first respondent submitted an application on 13.07.1993 and was informed that he could go to Madras on 21.07.1993 for settlement of amount; apart from gratuity and provident fund, the first respondent was entitled to a sum of Rs.73,368/-and, on the said day, the first respondent also submitted an application for payment of gratuity and a sum of Rs.50,599/-was due to him by way of gratuity; therefore, the petitioner was required to sign a settlement under Section 18 (1) of the Act, placing on record his voluntary retirement and the payment of his dues consequent to voluntary retirement and the same was signed by the first respondent; thereafter, the appellant had given the first respondent a cheque for a sum of Rs.72,112/-and another cheque for a sum of Rs.50,599/- towards gratuity and the same were encashed by the first respondent; however, after receiving the amount, the first respondent sent a letter, dated 21.07.1993, stating that VRS was obtained under coercion and the settlement, dated 21.07.1993, was illegal; therefore, on 20.08.1993, a reply was sent by the appellant, denying the allegation that the settlement was obtained under coercion, for which the first respondent sent a reply, dated 23.08.1993, dictating conditions for joining duty; finally, the appellant sent a reply, dated 07.09.1993, directing the first respondent to report for duty and return all the amounts, which he had received; and, thereafter, on 15.09.1993, the first respondent caused a lawyers notice, which was duly replied by the appellant, but the first respondent, on 11. 1993, submitted a petition to the second respondent, purporting to
