DHANJIBHAI MOHANBHAI SOLANKI Vs. GUJARAT MACHINERY MANUFACTURING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed against the award of the Labour Court in Reference Case No.113 of

(2.) At the outset, it is observed that learned Advocate for the petitioner is absent consistently. It has been recorded that learned Advocate for the petitioner has remained absent. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner himself has now expired. The matter is being of the year 2008, the petitioner having expired, no steps have been taken so far as to bring on record the legal heir, despite opportunities were given to the petitioner. The Court is constrained to proceed with the matter with the assistance of learned Advocate appearing for the respondent.

(3.) It is the case pertaining to application for resignation, however, seeking benefits under VRS Scheme. It is stated that such Scheme was never in existence, when the VRS application / resignation was tendered by the petitioner. The case before the Labour Court was that the petitionerworkman had joined the service of the respondent-employer on 19/06/1980. The respondent-employer had implemented various schemes to reduce the on-roll excess staff and workmen. The company had made attempts to obtain resignation of the petitioner-workman by causing him mental harassment and issuing notices to him without any reason and asked him to accept the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Finally, in September 1992, when the petitioner-workman was asked to accept the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and was informed that he would be rendered the benefits of VRS, the petitioner-workman had sent his resignation under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme to the Manager of the company on 15/09/1992.