IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1396 of 2016.

Judgment reserved on: 01.01.2018.

Date of decision: 5^th January, 2018.

M/S Federal Mogul Bearing India Limited .….Petitioner.

Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others …..Respondents.

Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No For the Petitioner : Mr.Rahul Mahajan, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr.J.S.Guleria, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2.

Mr.V.D.Khidtta, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.

The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the notification No.11-

2/93 (Lab.) ID/2015-Solan (Annexure P-1) made by the Joint Labour Commissioner on 19.12.2015 vide which he has made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court which, according to the petitioner, is neither competent nor maintainable.

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes

2. The petitioner-Company is a Public Limited Company duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It preparePd a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (‘VRS’) that was made applicable to all workers whose names were on the muster-roll of the petitioner-Company as on 02.04.2009 and had attained the age of 40 years or had put in continuance service of 10 years.

3. Respondent No.3 vide his application dated 18.04.2009 requested that the benefit under the Schetme be extended to him. The petitioner- Company accepted the request by extending the benefit of the Scheme whereby it paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards Voluntary Retirement Benefits and Rs.1,09,409/- towards gratuity, annual bonus un-availed earned leave, legal statutory dues and wages etc. A settlement to this effect was entered into vide Annexure P-4. However, it appears that respondent No.3 thereafter served a demand notice under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short ‘Act’) on the petitioner-Company alleging therein that he had been forced to take the benefit under the ‘VRS’ and he has been illegally terminated from service and further the benefits given under the ‘VRS’ were inadequate.

4. The petitioner-Company filed reply wherein it was submitted that the request for voluntary retirement was infact made by respondent No.3 and the same was accepted by the Company by paying all due and admissible amounts to respondent No.3 and, therefore, notice was nothing but an abuse of process of law and, therefore, be dropped. The Conciliation Officer sent his failure report to the Labour Commissioner, who, in turn, made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court which reads thus:- P “Whether voluntary retirement taken as per Voluntary Retirement Scheme dated 2.4.2009 by Hem Raj RanHa S/O Sh.Hoshiyar Singh Rana, operator from the management of M/S Federal Mogul Bearing India Limited, Plot No.5, Sector-2, Par wanoo, District Solan,H.P. is legally maintainable and justified? If not to what back wages, service benefit and relief the above named worker is entitled to from the above employer/management? If not what are its legal effects?”

5. This reference was assailed by the petitioner by filing CWP No.8024 of 2010 which uwas allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 22.09.2011 and the reference made by the Labour Commissioner was quashed and set aside. Even the review filed by respondent No.3 by way of Civil Review Petition No.191 of 2011 against the aforesaid judgment came to be dismissed on 03.09.2012.

6. It is thereafter that respondent No.3 again raised a demand under Section 2-A of the Act vide demand notice dated 01.04.2013 wherein he Hclaimed the wages for four months from July, 2008 till October, 2008, service benefits, payment for earned leave, medical gratuity etc. in terms of the ‘VRS’ and the settlement and requested that the same be paid to him along with interest.

7. The petitioner filed reply wherein it submitted that the dispute as preferred by the respondent was neither competent nor maintainable under Section 2-A of the Ac