Central Warehousing Corporation vs The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I

Ranjit Singh, J.—This order will dispose of two petitions i.e. CWP Nos. 22001 and 22004 of 2010.

Respondent No. 2 was appointed as Chowkidar on contract basis on 28.02.1983. Later, he was regularised w.e.f. 16.11.1984. He continued to work as such up to dated 14.08.2002 and pursuant to the scheme framed by the Petitioner-Corporation known as Voluntary Retirement Scheme (''VRS'' for short), Respondent No. 2 sought voluntary retirement from service w.e.f. 15.08.2002. The order of retirement was passed in terms of the scheme circulated vide letter dated 29.04.2002 (Annexure P-1). Respondent No. 2 was, accordingly, paid all retiral benefits for service he rendered from 16.11.1984 to 14.08.2002 as regular employee. Respondent No. 2, however, has served demand notice for release of v. benefit for the period of service during which he had remained with the Petitioner on contractual basis. The Petitioner has a greivance that the demand notice was served with delay of 7 years and thus was liable to be declined on the ground of delay alone. The Petitioner would further urge that in view of the clarificatory circular dated 15.05.2002 (Annexure P-2), no benefit of v. could be granted to the Respondent No. 2 for the period he had remained with the Petitioner on employment on contractual basis. When the conciliation failed between the parties, the Government made reference of the dispute for adjudication before the labour Court.

The statement of claim was, accordingly, filed on 07.04.2010. The Petitioner filed written statement in response to the claim statement. On 16.08.2010, the labour Court has answered the reference in favour of the Respondent/workman vide Annexure P-4 allowing the v. benefit to the Respondent for the period he had remained with the Petitioner on contractual service. The service rendered by Respondent No. 2 on contract basis has now been ordered to be counted for the purpose of calculating the v. benefit. The Petitioner has, accordingly, filed this writ petition to challenge this award.

The counsel for the Petitioner would first submit that v. benefit would be governed by the scheme formulated in this regard and as such the period for which the Respondent had remained with the Petitioner on contractual employment cannot be counted for the purpose of calculating the v. benefits. For this, counsel has referred to Annexure P-2 which is clarificatory circular issued to clarify certain doubts raised in regard to the operation of the v. formulated by the Petitioner/institution. One of the query raised was whether the employees appointed on contract basis can be considered as temporary employees for the purpose of v. and if yes, how the compensation would be calculated. In response to the same, it was clarified that contract employees are outside the purview of v. On this basis, the counsel would submit that the service rendered by the Respondent while he had served with the Petitioner on contract basis, thus, cannot be counted for the purpose of VRS, it being outside the purview thereof.

The clarification referred to above, cannot be read in the manner as urged by the counsel for the Petitioner. Firstly, the clarificatory circular is certainly not meant to regulate the v. Reading of this clarification would only show that v. is not applicable to those employees who are working on contractual employment and they are outside the purview of v. Thus, the employees working on contractual basis cannot seek voluntary retirement being not eligible. If Respondent No. 2 had been on a contractual employment, he could not have sought VRS.

The right of the Petitioner to be eligible for v. is not in dispute. The dispute is whether such benefit could be given to him for the period he had served on contract basis. This clarification issued has no relevance to decide this issue as it does not pertain to issue of regulating the period of service to be counted for VRS.

The labour Court has considered this issue in the light of retirement scheme. It is noticed that in the scheme, it is specially mentioned that for computation of the services of the computationist, who were absorbed in the Central Warehousing Corporation, the period of service rendered on deputation if any would not be counted as part of the services for the purpose of this scheme. All other services as per the scheme were required to be so computed. Taking this to be a scheme of VRS, the Respondent/workman has been held entitled to v. for the period for which he had directly received wages from the management. This approach of the labour Court apparently is fair and just. If there was any intention on the part of the Petitioner to deny the benefit of period of service rendered on contract basis for denying v. it was required to specifically so provided in the scheme as such. The approach adopted by the labour Court is justified and would not call for any interference. An employee working on contractual basis may not be entitled to v. but once he is taken on regular employment then his total service with the Petitioner can be relevant for v. if on contract or otherwise as he was paid for the said service.

Counsel for the Petitioner next makes a grievance that labour Court was not justified in allowing the interest and that too at the rate of 10% per annum. Counsel would submit that any payment prior to the date of demand notice could not have been allowed. Present one is a case where entitlement was not in dispute. The dispute only related to the period of service rendered by Respondent No. 2 while he had served on a contractual basis. Once he was held entitled to v. for this period, his right to claim this amount from the date it was due would stand recognized. That being the position, it cannot be said that he was entitled to receive this amount on the date of voluntary retirement and this amount was withheld by the Petitioner for all these years for any reason whatsoever. Accordingly, Respondent No. 2 would be entitled to have interest on this amount which was withheld from the date it was due to the date of the payment. The labour Court, thus, is justified in allowing his claim. No case of interference in the award is made out. There is no merit in the writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.