LAWS(P&H)-2008-4-20

MARUTI UDYOG LTD Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On April 11, 2008
MARUTI UDYOG LTD Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CIVIL Misc. No. 5988 Of 2008 C:m. is allowed. Annexures R-9 and R-10 are taken on record. Main case. Present writ petition has been preferred by Marutiudypg Limited, wherein they have sought quashing of the reference order (Annexure P-6), whereby state of Haryana through the Secretary to Govt. of haryana, Labour Department had referred the dispute regarding the termination of Jatinder Kumar, respondent-workman to the Labour Court. Petitioner-management has averred that the respondent-workman was employed in the welding department and he met with a road accident in June 2000 and was unfit to perform his duties. Upon introduction of Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) on 24. 9. 2001 by the petitioner-management, respondent-workman preferred an application dated 18th october, 2001 and opted for voluntary retirement. It has been emphasized that application for voluntary retirement was in own handwriting of the respondent-workman and the same has been attached as annexure PI/a in vernacular, translation of which is annexure as Annexure P-1. It is further stated that he also wrote application (Annexure P-2), wherein he stated that he should be paid Rs. 25,000 more towards medical benefits It has been specifically stated that the respondent-workman received dues amounting to Rs. 2,02,562 towards voluntary retirement and after acceptance, the amount of the cheques were encashed by the respondent-workman.

(2.) IN the written statement filed respondent-workman has stated that while accepting VRS, he was not in a sound mental and physical state, therefore, afterwards he had served demand notice (Annexure P-5 ). It has been further stated that since his mental and physical condition was not proper, therefore, he could not take reasonable and proper decision while opting for VRS. The respondent-workman has further taken a preliminary objection that whether he was mentally or physically fit to take a decision regarding acceptance of VRS or not, is a disputed question of faot which can only be determined by the learned Labour Court. Therefore, order of reference (Annexure P-6) cannot be quashed and furthermore, he is ready and wilting to return the amount received due to voluntary retirement.

(3.) IT has been contended by Mr. Sarin, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that under the definition of section 2 (oo), retrenchment specifically exclude voluntary retirement of the workmen and therefore, voluntary retirement will not amount to termination of service and the same could not be validly referred for adjudication as an industrial dispute to Labour Court. Reliance has been placed upon National Engineering Industries Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, 2000 I CLR 389 SC: 2000 LLR 228. (SC) to contend that the has himself accepted the amount of retirement and had encashed the cheque therefore, there was cessation of relationship of, employer and workman within the meaning of section 2 (g) and (s ). As under section 2 (s), dismissal, discharge or retrenchment only, will amount to dispute between employer and workman therefore voluntary retirement is not within the ambit of dispute envisaged under. Act. Therefore, under section 10, after the cessation of relationship of employer and workman, no industrial dispute existed or apprehended.