K V RAMACHANDRAN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in W.P.No.8890 of 2000 is a Shorthand Writer, the petitioner in W.P.No.8891 of 2000 is a Studio Manager and the petitioner in W.P.No.8892 of 2000 is a Manager incharge in Printing and Production Department under the writ petitioner Company. All the three of them raised industrial disputes under Section 2(A)(2) of the I.D. Act, which were taken on the file by the first respondent Labour Court as I.D.Nos.916 to 918 of 1981 respectively.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioners was that they had no inclination to go on voluntary retirement and one Branch Manager by name Jude Fernandez called them to his room and compelled them to sign in a letter for going on voluntary retirement. This was resisted by the second respondent Management on the ground that the company's financial position was not alright during the year 1980-81 and because of that, they introduced Voluntary Retirement Scheme [for short 'VRS'] and the petitioners in these petitions were well aware of the company's financial position and, therefore, applied voluntarily to go on retirement. Subsequent to the application, they were relieved from their posts and they also gave letters for early settlement of the benefit under the VRS. Such a scheme has been introduced by the second respondent Management not only in Chennai, but in the other centres like Bangalore, Delhi and Hyderabad also. In respect of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.8891 and 8892 of 2000, an additional objection was raised by the second respondent that they were not workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act and hence, the industrial disputes raised by them were not maintainable.

(3.) I have heard the arguments of Mr. B. Divakaran, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners in all the three petitions and Mr. S. Ravindran for M/s T.S. Gopalan & CO., learned counsel appearing for the second respondent Management in all the writ petitions and have perused the records.