Voluntary retirement results in a complete cessation of the jural relationship between the employer and the employee, and the employee cannot later claim additional benefits for the period of service.

Rajesh Bindal, J.

This order will dispose of dispose of CWP Nos. 8422, 8506, 8509, 8519, 8521, 8552, and 8574 of 2011, as the common questions of law and facts are involved therein. Briefly the facts of the case are that the respondents herein were working on different posts with the petitioner Corporation. They had sought voluntarily retirement as per the scheme framed by the petitioner. After they had already retired, they filed applications u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act'), before the Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh, (for short, 'the Labour Court') seeking payment of certain emoluments which, according to them, were due for the period they were in service. The posts on which the respondents were working, the date on which they sought voluntarily retirement, the date on which the application u/s 33C(2) of the Act was filed, and the amount paid on voluntarily retirement in lump sum, are given below:-

2. The respondents who were serving on the posts, as mentioned above, sought voluntary retirement and were paid the lump sum as per the scheme framed. More than three to five years thereafter, they filed application u/s 33C(2) of the Act claiming that on account of merger of 50% Dearness Allowance with the basic pay with effect from 1.4.2004, they were entitled to increased emoluments upto their date of retirement. The claim was accepted by the learned Labour Court vide common impugned award dated 4.2.2011, which has been impugned by the petitioner Corporation before this court in the present bunch of writ petitions.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that firstly the respondents herein cannot be termed to be the workmen. They were working on senior positions in managerial capacity. Accordingly, they were not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. Secondly, he submitted that after the respondents had sought voluntarily retirement and the lump sum amount as per retirement scheme had been paid to them, the relationship of master and servant came to an end. Thereafter, they could not seek any benefit which may be due to them during their period of service.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even on merits as well, the respondents have no claim for the reason that merger of 50% dearness allowance with the basic pay was to take effect from 1.10.2006, whereas the respondents had already retired prior thereto. The aforesaid decision was partially modified and the effective date of merger was changed to 1.4.2004. However, it was applicable only for the employees, who were on the rolls of the company as on 1.3.2008. Hence, even on merits, the respondents were not entitled to the relief which has been granted to them by the Labour Court. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance upon judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in A.K. Bindal and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, AIR 2003 SC 2189, HEC Voluntary Retd. Emps. Welfare Soc. and Another Vs. Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. and Others, AIR 2006 SC 1420 and judgment of Delhi High Court in W.P. (C.) No. 8425 of 2009-Inderpal Singh v. National Textile Corporation Limited dated 24.2.2010.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents are seeking the benefits in terms of a clause in the policy whereby arrears of salary/wages payable due to revision, etc. are to be included while computing the benefits and difference is required to be paid. Once, the decision was taken by the authorities for merger of 50% dearness allowance with basic pay, the consequential increased emoluments are payable to the respondents.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

7. The facts of the case, as have been enumerated above, that the respondents herein sought voluntarily retirement on the dates, as mentioned in paragraph No. 2, and were paid emoluments in terms of the scheme, are not in dispute. The dispute in the present case i