N PALANIAPPAN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER MADURAI LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is filed against the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD) No. 4161 of 2008 dismissing the writ petition. Challenging the same, the writ Petitioner has preferred this appeal.

(2.) The Appellant / Petitioner was a workman under the second Respondent-Company. On an announcement of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, he has presented his application for voluntary retirement on 17.08.1998 and it has not been accepted by the Management. Thereafter, the second Respondent-Management once again introduced another scheme during the year 1999 and in pursuance thereof, the Appellant gave a fresh application dated 20.04.1999 and the same was accepted by the Management. Even though, the application was accepted, he was not permitted to relieve. Thereafter, at the pressure of the Management, he submitted his resignation letter on 17.02.2000 and thereafter he was relieved from the post, as per the scheme, on 31.03.2000. Even though he was relieved with effect from 31.03.2000, he was not paid any amount towards VRS. Scheme. Hence he filed a claim petition before the Labour Court, the first Respondent herein, in C.P. No. 50 of 2002 in the month of January 2002. The Labour Court dismissed the petition on the ground that Ex.P5-order passed showing the acceptance of VRS, must have been a fabricated one, against which, the worker had preferred the writ petition. The learned Single Judge of this Court confirmed the finding of the Labour Court / the first Respondent herein, that Ex.P5 cannot be believed. Hence this Court dismissed the writ petition. Against the order passed in the writ petition, the present writ appeal has been filed.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the Appellant was a worker in the second Respondent-Company and he has put in more than 30 years of service.