VIRENDER PAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner workman seeks a mandamus directing the respondent no.1 to refer the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner qua respondent no.3 employer for adjudication. It is the case of the petitioner that in June, 1996 the respondent no.3 employer, namely, M/s Hindustan Vegetable Oil Corporation Limited put up a notice on the notice board offering voluntary retirement scheme; that on 3rd September, 1996 the petitioner was misled to sign the offer of voluntary retirement and the said offer was antedated to read as of 30th August, 1996 on the plea that the scheme had expired on 31st August, 1996; that the petitioner on 3rd September, 1996 itself withdrew the said offer for voluntary retirement, even before it was accepted. The respondent no.3 however forwarded to the petitioner the compensation for voluntary retirement as per the said scheme which was not accepted by the petitioner and the petitioner accordingly filed a statement of claim before the Conciliation Officer. Upon failure of conciliation, the respondent no.1 however refused to refer the dispute. Hence this petition.

(2.) This court issued notice of the petition on 12th February, 1999. On 10th March, 2000 it was noticed that it was the stand of the respondent no.3 employer that the application dated 30th August, 1996 of the petitioner for voluntary retirement was accepted on 30th August, 1996 itself but the petitioner claimed that he worked upto 4th September, 1996 and had withdrawn his application on 3rd September, 1996. This court further noted that subsequently because of the order of the Supreme Court the unit of the respondent no.3 employer in which the petitioner was working was closed down and the respondent no.3 had again issued notice dated 28th February, 2000 inviting applications for voluntary retirement. It was the stand of the petitioner before this court that the petitioner was willing to accept the voluntary retirement scheme of 28th February, 2000 whereunder the compensation payable was more than that under the scheme of June, 1996. This court further noted that in view of the closure of the unit, even if the petitioner ultimately succeeded, the relief of reinstatement could not be granted. In these circumstances, the respondent no.3 was directed to pay the amount offered to the petitioner earlier as per the scheme of June, 1996. In the next order of 28th August, 2000 it was noted that the payment as directed had been made to the petitioner. Rule was issued in the petition. In the order dated 2nd May, 2003 it is further noted that the petitioner had received 95% of the provident fund claimed by him. The petition came up for hearing on 8th April, 2010 when it was realized that the order of the Central Government impugned in this petition, of refusal to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal is not on record. The counsel for the petitioner was directed to place the same on record. The counsel for the petitioner has filed a copy of the order dated 30th October, 1998 relevant portion whereof is as under:

(3.) Attempts were again made by this court for settlement. However, the petitioner is unwilling. The counsel for the parties have been heard.