MEENA CHAKORBORTY Vs. FEDERAL MOGUL BEARING INDIA LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all these review petitions, the same are taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment. These review petitions are directed against the judgment rendered by this Court on 22.9.2011 in CWP No. 8022/2010 and other connected writ petitions. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of these review petitions are that the respondent-company (hereinafter referred to as the 'management' for convenience sake) has framed a Voluntary Retirement Scheme, which came into force with effect from 2.3.2009. It has to remain operative till 15.5.2009. Petitioners, i.e. workmen sought voluntary retirement under the scheme. They were paid the agreed amount. Workmen had also applied for the release of provident fund, retiral benefits etc. Thereafter, they issued demand notices to the respondent-company on the ground that they were forced to seek voluntary retirement. They had also contended that their services were wrongly terminated and they were entitled to be reinstated in job with back wages and other benefits with interest @ 12% per annum. Thereafter, Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer after receiving the demand notices sent a notice to the management to settle the matter amicably. The management filed the reply. Case of the management was that since the workmen had sought voluntary retirement, they were estopped from issuing demand notices. However, on the basis of failure report submitted by the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, the State Government made the references to the Labour Court on 13.10.2010. The text of one of the references reads thus:

(2.) The management challenged the decision of the competent authority whereby the references were made by filing writ petitions. These writ petitions were allowed by us on 22.9.2011 and the references made by the State Government to the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal were quashed.

(3.) Mr. V.D. Khidta has strenuously argued that the workmen were called in the Cabins by the officers and they were forced to accept the voluntary retirement under the scheme. This contention of Mr. V.D. Khidta has been repelled by this Court. The workmen have not led any tangible evidence to establish that they were forced to accept the voluntary retirement. They have not even named the officers who were responsible for forcing them to seek voluntary retirement.