The jurisdiction of Labour Courts is confined to adjudicating individual disputes, and claims of coercion regarding voluntary retirement can be validly presented before them despite accepted VR schemes.

ORDER:

These two Writ Petitions are filed seeking to issue a writ of prohibition restraining the Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad-Respondent No.1, from proceeding further with I.D.Nos.30 of 2016 and 39 of 2016 on its file and consequently quash the said proceedings.

2. Since the issue involved is identical, these two writ petitions are being disposed of by way of common order.

3. For convenience, the facts in W.P.No.32875 of 2016 are discussed hereunder:

(a) The Petitioner herein is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and it is engaged in the business of castings for automobiles and tractors, industrial engines, construction equipment and power generation equipment. It has its unit known as 'Ductron Castings Unit' at IDA, Uppal, Hyderabad.

(b) The said unit has become unviable, and the Petitioner Company incurred recurring losses for the past eight years. The operations were suspended from June 2014, and the said Unit has been totally non-operational from 01.09.2015.

(c) In the year 2014, the petitioner realized that the further sustenance of the unit is not possible unless some extreme steps are taken to reduce the fixed costs. After due deliberations with the Respondent No.187 Union and apprising them of the reasons for the units unviable situation, the petitioner management introduced a Voluntary Retirement Scheme on 01.09.2014, offering compensation to eligible workmen who opt thereunder. Out of 425 workmen on the units roll as on 01.09.2014, 193 opted for the said VR Scheme by submitting applications in the prescribed Telugu language. All the employees, including respondent Nos.2 to 184 herein, have voluntarily submitted their applications, which were accepted, and they were all paid compensation under the said Scheme, and thus the first VR Scheme itself came to an end.

(d) Respondent No. 2 was also one such employee who opted under the First VR Scheme, having submitted his application dated 07.09.2014, which was accepted by the Petitioner management.

(e) All the workmen, who had opted under the First VR Scheme were paid compensation in two instalments and since the VR Scheme introduced by the Petitioner management was in accordance with Section 10 (10C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 2-BA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, all the workmen availed the benefit of exemption from the computation of the said compensation as 'Income'.

(f) Even after downsizing the workforce, thereby reducing the fixed cost towards labour, the petitioner management realized that the efforts to improve the viability of the unit are not likely to yield any positive desired results in the light of technical, commercial and other issues plaguing the unit and in order to protect the interests of the workmen, the petitioner management introduced the second VR Scheme dated 27.05.2015 offering ex-gratia in addition to the VRS compensation and all the remaining 125 workmen opted thereunder, which was accepted by the respondents and all the said workmen were paid compensation, ex-gratia and other dues, which were received by them.

(g) While things stood thus, after a lapse of more than one year after the first VR Scheme, respondent Nos.2 to 184 filed a petition under section 2-A(2) of the ID Act before respondent No.1 herein, and the following are the brief averments in I.D.No.30 of 2016 before the 1^st respondent:

(1) The Petitioners therein were working in the respondent No.1 organization therein;

(ii) The petitioners are questioning the action of the respondent No.1 therein in allegedly closing the industry in a purported advertisement issued on 19.08.2015, without prior permission