PURANDARAN Vs. HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners 1 to 3 and 5 to 23 were the employees of the Tata Oil Mills. With the merger of the Company with the Hindustan Lever on 19.3.1993, the petitioners became the employees of the 1st respondent. The petitioners were tempted to adopt the Voluntary Retirement Scheme introduced by the respondent and they left the service of the respondents. Thereafter, they came to understand that there was a change of terms in the Voluntary Retirement Scheme of the Company under which 15% more than what the petitioners got was admissible. The dispute based on the claim of the petitioners for the enhanced benefit reached the Labour Court, but, as per the impugned order marked as Ext. P1 in this case, the Labour Court found that the petitioners, having adopted the Voluntary Retirement Scheme which tantamounts to resignation are not entitled to claim the status of 'workmen' for the purpose of S.2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Consequently, the claim was found to be not maintainable and dismissed.

(2.) Mr. A. X. Varghese, the learned counsel for the petitioners, relied on the decision in Nar Singh Pal v. Union of India ( AIR 2000 SC 1401 ) where the employees who claimed the benefits had resorted to proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal. Even though the Tribunal rejected the claim on the ground that the petitioner therein having accepted the retrenchment compensation was not entitled to raise any industrial dispute, the Supreme Court found that there would be no estoppel against the exercise of Fundamental Rights available under the Constitution and upheld the claim of the employee.

(3.) During hearing the learned counsel for the Management placed reliance on a decision in Everestee v. District Labour Officer ( 1999 (2) KLT 560 ) where a Bench of this Court found that a person who voluntarily retired under a Voluntary Retirement Scheme cannot be taken as a 'workman' for the purpose of S.2(s) of the I.D. Act and dismissed the claim.