PHILIPS EMPLOYEES UNION Vs. P T JAGTAP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule is issued on both petitions. Respondents waive service. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith.

(2.) These two petitions have been filed on behalf of the employees who had accepted voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) under a memorandum of Settlement dated December 10, 2001. Writ Petition No. 3112 of 2004 has been filed by the recognised Trade Union whereas Writ Petition No. 3175 of 2004 is filed by some of the employees who have acceptec vrs under the Settlement dated December 10: 2001. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to the petition 5 are Additional Commissioner of Labour and state Government and Respondent No. 3 is the company. By the said Memorandum of settlement it was, inter alia, agreed that the benefits stated therein were inclusive of any benefits available under Mumbai VRS 2001 scheme which were to be formulated as per the settlement dated December 10, 2001. It is the grievance of the petitioners that there was shortfall in payment of VRS amounts and the employees were paid less commuted amounts and monthly pensions than what was promised in the Settlement dated December 10, 2001. It appears that the Union took the matter with the management and complained that not only commuted amount was less than 33% but even the monthly pension was also reduced disproportionately. A notice was also served on the company through the advocate but the company chose to dispute the claim of the petitioners and, therefore, an industrial dispute was raised by the Union vide letters dated June 11, 2002 and August 20, 2002 Exhibit U and x to the petition. It is the grievance of the petitioners that Conciliation Officer has failed to take further steps as required by the industrial Disputes Act despite requests and reminders and, therefore, the petitioners are seeking a direction to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to take the matter in conciliation and make failure report in the event of failure and to make an order referring the dispute raised to the Industrial Tribunal. 2. On behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 additional Commissioner of Labour has filed the affidayit-in-reply to the petition contending that by virtue of the Settlement which was arrived at between the Union and Management of the company, without giving proper thought to the said VRS the members have no choice but to accept the VRS and after accepting the vrs relationship between the management and the workmen came to an end. The Respondent no. 3 has also filed affidavit-in-reply contending that the employees have voluntarily retired from service, received consideration for the same as part of the concluded contract and, therefore, issue of VRS does not form subject matter of an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2 (k) of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947.

(3.) Mr. Cama, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, brought to our notice the decision of the Division Bench in Ceat Ltd. (Electronics Division) v. Anand Aba Saheb hawaldar and Ors, 2003-III-LLJ-268 where the submission of the company was that 6 employees who filed complaint were not 'workmen" under Section 2 (s) of Industrial disputes Act and, therefore, not employees under Section 3 (5) of M-R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act, 1971 as on acceptance of VRS, the relationship of employer and employees came to an end. The Division Bench after examining the relevant judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court concluded as follows at p. 273: