AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Kalyanasundaram, J
Challenging the order dated 17.8.2011 made in W.P. No. 11819 of 2010, directing the appellant herein to pay Rs. 1,80,000/- towards VRS
amount to the second respondent herein, this writ appeal is filed. The brief facts are that the second respondent/Mr. A. Jayaraj joined the service
of the appellant on 26.6.1985 as a casual workman and his service was confirmed on 01.04.1989. During the year 2003, the appellant put up a
Voluntary Retirement Scheme. On 18.8.2003, the second respondent opted to leave the service of the appellant in terms of Voluntary Retirement
Scheme after completing 18 years of service and he was relieved on 30.9.2003. The appellant computed 14 years service of the second
respondent and paid a sum of Rs. 2,48,190/- as VRS amount. In the year 2006, the second respondent filed G.A. No. 270 of 2005 before the
Controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, claiming reckoning of service from 26.6.1985 and the same was allowed. Subsequently,
the second respondent filed a Claim Petition in C.P. No. 82 of 2007 u/s 33(C)(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, to compute his four years service
and claimed Rs. 1,80,000/- as due and payable to him. The Labour Court, by order dated 23.2.2010 allowed the claim petition along with interest
at the rate of 9% per annum.
Aggrieved by the said order of the Labour Court, the appellant filed a writ petition contending that the second respondent opted to leave the
service of the appellant in terms of VRS scheme, and in the receipt he had given an undertaking that he will not claim any due from the appellant.
The appellant further contended that ''employer'' and ''employee'' relationship extinguished immediately after the second respondent availed the
VRS Scheme and left the service and in view of the undertaking in the stamped receipt, second respondent is estopped from filing the claim
petition.
The learned single Judge held that the notice containing the terms of VRS Scheme does not refer to the service rendered only after confirmation
and not before, and if the employer wants to offer the amount towards VRS scheme for every completed year of service, they should have
mentioned it specifically in their offer. The learned single Judge further held that there is no dispute with regard to the length of service as evidenced
by the order passed by the Gratuity authority and the letter sent by the Provident Fund Department. Since there is no specific bar from counting the
entire length of service, the Labour Court had correctly counted the entire service of the second respondent and allowed the application. In view of
the above findings, the learned single Judge found that the order of the Labour Court in computing the payment of Rs. 1,80,000/- was in order.
But with regard to the payment of interest is concerned, the learned single Judge relied on the judgment of this Court reported in Management of
Nathan''s Press Vs. K. Krishnan and Others, and held that the second respondent was not entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
Being aggrieved by the allowing of the writ petition, the appellant has filed the present writ appeal.
Mr. Ravindran-the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is not disputing the service of the second respondent from
26.6.1985, but their contention is that the services of the second respondent was confirmed on 1.4.1989 and as such, only from 1.4.1989 the
second respondent can be said to be entered into the service of the appellant. The appellant floated the VRS Scheme in the year 2003 and the
second respondent had opted to leave the services of the appellant and for calculating the length of service, the second respondent had agreed to
calculate the service from the date of confirmation i.e. 1.4.1989. Accordingly, the entire claim of the second respondent was settled by the
appellant and he has also executed proper receipts for the receipt of the amount under VRS Scheme and left the service on 30.9.2003. In the
receipt, he has specifically gave an undertaking that he will not make any claim in future. So he is now estopped from claiming any further amount
for his service. The learned counsel further contended that the service calculated for payment of Gratuity and Provident Fund for the second
respondent cannot be taken for the VRS Scheme, as there was no ''employer-employee'' relationship after the second respondent left the service
of the appellant and the claim is not maintainable in law. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of the honourable Apex Court reported in
A.K. Bindal and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, and the judgment of the Kerala High Court reported in Everestee Vs. District
Labour Officer, .
Mr. G.B. Saravana Bhavan-learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the second respondent joined in service of the appellant
on 26.6.1985 is not in dispute. The work assigned to the second respondent in the appellant company was permanent and perennial in nature and
he had been in the service of the appellant continuously for a period of 18 years and the same was rightly calculated for payment of gratuity and
provident fund benefits. Even as per the evidence of the appellant management, the second respondent left the service under VRS Scheme on
30.9.2002, but the amount was not paid on that day. The learned counsel further contended that the second respondent filed the claim petition to
compute the services rendered by him and that there was no specific clause in the Voluntary Retirement Scheme to exclude the service rendered as
a Casual Labourer. So, the order passed by the learned single Judge need not be interfered with in the writ appeal.
In the judgment reported in A.K. Bindal and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , the employee, who opted to retire under the VRS
scheme and accepted the benefits thereunder, further claimed pay revision for the pre-retirement period. In those facts, the Honourable Apex
Court has held that the employee cannot be permitted to raise any grievance regarding enhancement of pay scale and in that event the whole
purpose of introducing the scheme would be totally frustrated.
In the judgment reported in Everestee Vs. District Labour Officer, , the workman accepted the benefits of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme
and retired from service. Thereafter, he approached the Labour Court claiming more money on par with the employees retired along with the
appellant. So, the Division of the Kerala High Court has held that the workman will not come under the definition of 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes
Act.
The second respondent filed the claim petition for computing the completed years of his service for calculating the amount payable under the
Voluntary Retirement Scheme. So, the citations referred to above are not applicable to the facts of this case.
It is seen from the records that the total service of the second respondent, i.e. 18 years, was taken into account to pay the benefits under the
Employees'' Provident Fund Scheme and the Gratuity Act. Whereas, for calculating the amount under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, the
appellant computed only 14 years of his service and paid the amount. The appellant has admitted that the second respondent joined the service on
26.6.1985 as a Casual Labourer and his service was confirmed on 1.4.1989. As per the VRS Scheme, an employee will be paid Rs. 1,50,000/-
for the first three years of his service and thereafter for every completed year of service, Rs. 45,000/- will be paid for each year. The terms of the
scheme does not refer any term of ''permanent service'', so, even a temporary, Casual and Permanent employees are entitled to calculate the entire
length of service. So, the second respondent is entitled to get payment towards VRS scheme for the services not taken into account by the
appellant management, namely, for a period of four years. The perusal of the receipt said to have been given by the second respondent would
reveal that the receipt does not contain any date and according to the second respondent, one month after the acceptance of VRS Scheme, he was
asked to sign. The witness examined by the appellant management also was to the effect that the amount under the VRS scheme was paid to the
second respondent not on the date of his retirement. In such fact situation, it cannot be held that the workman is estopped from claiming further
amount.
The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the workman the second respondent opted to leave the service in terms of
Voluntary Retirement Scheme and left the service on 30.9.2003 and thereafter, there was no ''employer-employee'' relationship between them
cannot be accepted since the dispute pertains to the payment of compensation payable under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and therefore, the
second respondent/workman is entitled to maintain the claim petition and the amount computed u/s 33(3)(C) of the Act is in order and the same
cannot be interfered with in the writ appeal.
The writ Court considered all the points urged by the appellant and rightly confirmed the order passed by the Labour Court directing the
appellant to pay Rs. 1,80,000/- towards VRS amount to the second respondent. In view of our discussion supra, we do not find any ground
warranting interference in the order passed by the learned single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. However, there is no order as to
costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.