An employee cannot withdraw his offer of voluntary retirement after it has been accepted by the employer under a Voluntary Retirement Scheme containing mutual benefits in the nature of a golden handshake.

By the present peti tion under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 30-11-1993 passed by the Manager (Personel and Administration), Scooters India Limited, Lucknow, by which the Management has accepted the voluntary retirement of the petitioner under Volun tary Retirement Scheme with effect from 31-12-1993.

2. The Scooters India Limited is a Public Sector Undertaking entirely owned, controlled and managed by the Govern ment of India. On account of staggering losses the Scooters India Limited was declared a sick unit under the Sick In dustrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and proceedings were initiated for its rehabilitation and restructuring. The Board of Industrial and Financial reconstruction advised the Company to reduce its strength of staff and in this con nection an office Memorandum dated 5-10-1988 was issued by Public Enterprises, Min istry of Industry, Government of India for formulation of Voluntary Retirement Scheme.

3. In accordance with the aforesaid Voluntary Retirement Scheme formulated by the Scooters India Limited the petitioner also opted for Voluntary retirement through his application dated 29-11-1993 addressed to the Executive Director, Scooters India Limited, Lucknow with the request that voluntary retirement be made effective from 15-4-1994. By the impugned order dated 30-11-1993, the Manager (Per sonnel and Administration) Scooters India Limited accepted the request for voluntary retirement but made it effective from 31-12-1993. The petitioner moved a repre sentation dated 15-12-93 before the respon dents withdrawing his request for voluntary retirement and prayed that his request for voluntary retirement be treated as can celled. The petitioner has alleged that the respondents proceeded with the decision in pursuance of the order dated 30-11-1993 but he was allowed to work even after 31-12-1993. The petitioner further alleged that he was not paid his wages and dues as admis sible to him under the Voluntary Retire ment Scheme adopted by the respondents.

4. The petitioner has claimed that he is to be treated in service of the respondents as the action of voluntary retirement is in dividual to an employee and once he makes offer for voluntary retirement effective from a future date the employer has no power or jurisdiction to make it effective from any date prior to the date on which the employee makes his offer of voluntary-retirement effective. The petitioner has also placed on record a clarification of the office Memorandum dated 29-5-1992 issued by the department of Public Enterprises, Min istry of Industry, Government of India clarifying that the

employees could be per mitted to withdraw his application for voluntary retirement before the Manage ment of Public Enterprises notifies its decision to accept his application for retire ment.

5. By a supplementary affidavit, the petitioner has brought on record an order dated 16-2-1994 passed by the respondents under which the petitioner was relieved from service with effect from 22-2-1994.

6. In the counter-affidavit filed on be half of the respondents, the Management of the Scooters India Ltd. it has been alleged that the Company was incurring huge losses and was also facing the problem of huge force of surplus staff. The Company introduced in the year 1988 a Voluntary Retire ment Scheme as per guide-lines circulated by the Ministry of Heavy Industry, Government of India. It has been stated that about 900 employees submitted their option seek ing their voluntary retirement under the Scheme in which the petitioner was also one of them. Under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme the respondents provided the benefits which included the payment towards ex-gratia, gratuity, unpaid wages, encashment of un-availed earned-leave and notice or pay in lieu of notice besides pay ment towards travelling of their family members an. i transportation of their per sonal effects upto the place of thei