The main legal point established was that employees are entitled to VRS amounts based on the pay-scale of the 4th Central Pay Commission and the dearness allowance applicable to State Government employees at the time of VRS, as per the principles of equity and justice.

S.C. Sharma, J.

Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the present cases, the writ petitions were analogously heard and by a common order, they are being disposed of by this Court. Facts of the Writ Petition No.8822/2013 are narrated hereunder.

2. The petitioner before this Court, M.P. Road Transport Corporation and others have filed this present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 26.02.2013 pronounced on 01.04.2013, passed in case No.72/08-ID/Reference, by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ujjain.

3. Facts of the case reveal that the petitioner No.1 is corporation constituted under the provisions of Road Transport Corporation Act, 1958 and the respondent No.1 is a trade union registered under the Trade Union Act.

4. As the corporation was facing financial crunch, a scheme was framed in the year 2000 known as Voluntary Retirement Scheme and scheme was finally introduced in the year 2004 known as VRS scheme 2004. It has been stated in the writ petition that based upon the VRS scheme, options were invited from the employees and employees with open eyes accepted the scheme of VRS and the dues were paid to them while granting retirement to them.

5. Petitioners have further stated that certain petitioners raised grievance in respect of the voluntary retirement scheme 2004 and respondent No.1-trade union took shelter of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The appropriate government made a reference under Section 10 (2) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 to the labour court for adjudication. Following reference was made by the appropriate government for adjudication:-

^D;k lsok fu;qfDr ds ns; nkf;Roksa dk fu;kstu }kjk fuEukuqlkj Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gS \ ;fn ugha rks f'kojktflag ek[kuflag vk;Z dks fu;kstd }kjk nh xbZ LosfPNd lsok fuo`fRr oS/k ,oa mfpr gS \ ;fn ugha rks og fdl lgk;rk ds ik= gSa ,oa bl laca/k esa fu;ksDrk dks D;k funsZ'k fn;s tkuk pkfg;s \*

6. The aforesaid reference makes it very clear that tribunal was required to decide the fact whether the employer has paid the terminal dues as per the rules or not while granting voluntary retirement to the workmen and in case, the terminal dues have not been paid as per rules, what reliefs the employees are entitled for?

7. Statement of claim was filed by the workmen as well as by the union. In the present case, it was stated by the employer that a sum of Rs.2,65,000/- was paid to the employee and while granting the dues, the pay-scale, which was being given to the workmen based upon the recommendation of 4th pay commission along with 20% of interim relief based upon the recommendation of 5th pay commission was taken into consideration.

8. It has been argued by Shri Patwardhan, learned counsel that matter before the labour court was in respect of payment of dues made at the time of grant of voluntary retirement, however, the statement of claim was submitted by the workmen claiming dues right from the year 1998 and the workmen have also claimed certain benefits from 1994 i.e. encashment of leaves etc.

9. Respondents also filed a counter statement of claim and it was demonstrated that they have calculated the VRS amount based upon the pay-scale granted to the employees by the corporation (4th pay-commission) and 20% D.A. based upon recommendation of 5th pay commission.

10. Shri Patwardhan, learned counsel has argued that the labour court has passed the award and has held that complete dues to the workmen have not been paid and the labour court has gone to the extent in holding that dues are to be paid based upon the recommendation of 5th pay commission and the pay-scale has to be granted based upon the recommendation of 5th pay commission and the workmen are certainly entitled for grant of pay-scale on the basis of recommendation of 5t h pay commission. His contention is that no decision was taken by the corporation or the State Government for granting the aforesaid pay-scale (5th pay commission) and therefore, the impugned award deserves