UDAY SINGH MATHUR SON OF SHRI HARI SINGH THROUGH SHRI B.L. GUPTA AND SHRI KULDEEP SINGH POONIA, ADDRESS: 6, KRISHNA COLONY, NAYA KHEDA, AMBABADI, JAIPUR (RAJ.) Vs. MODERN FOOD INDUSTRIES (I) LTD., THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR, ADDRESS: R.K. PURAM SECTOR 13, RING ROAD, NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal arises from order dated 09.07.2012 dismissing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8153/2012 declining to interfere with the Award dated 10.04.2012 of the Labour Court-I, Jaipur in Case No. L.C.R. 216/2003. The Labour Court held that Appellant of his independent volition took voluntary retirement and there was no element of force, pressure or coercion exercised upon him for the same.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme for Workmen, 2001 (hereinafter called the 'VRS') the Management was required to take a decision on the application for VRS within two weeks. It naturally means that the employee had a right to withdraw his application before expiry of two weeks or communication of acceptance. The Appellant submitted his application for VRS on 06.05.2002 and withdrew it on 08.05.2002. Once a letter of withdrawal had been given before its acceptance the action of the Respondents in communicating acceptance thereafter on 09.05.2002 was illegal, arbitrary and an act of force compelling voluntary retirement which cannot be described as voluntary any more. Without prejudice to the same it was submitted that this acceptance was never communicated to the Appellant. Acknowledging that the financial benefits of the VRS were accepted on 09.05.2002 it was submitted that it was under compulsion as the Appellant had no other option but to accept whatever was being offered to him rather than be a loser by loss of job and financially also while he had a family to look after. The aspect that the application for VRS was withdrawn before acceptance has not been considered in its correct perspective both by the Labour Court and the Learned Single Judge.

(3.) All issues incidental to an order of Reference can be decided simultaneously to avoid multiplicity of litigation even if it was not specifically mentioned in the order of Reference. If acceptance of the application for VRS after withdrawal amounted to coercion or pressure was incidental and ought to have been decided rather than a pedantic approach to the terms of Reference. The finding that the withdrawal dated 08.05.2002 was by the Union in a representative capacity and not individual by the Appellant while the letter seeking VRS on 06.05.2002 was personal is perverse and contrary to the record. The withdrawal was also personal signed by the Appellant even though it may have been signed by some others also. The Management had originally agreed to pay additional Rs.1,00,000.00 amount and on which understanding the VRS was given but which was sought to be withdrawn subsequently and therefore the appellant was compelled to withdraw his letter for VRS on 08.05.2002. Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the Reference was limited as to whether the VRS application was obtained forcefully or it was voluntary. This naturally referred to the original application by the Appellant for grant of VRS and not the alleged subsequent withdrawal by him. The Management had denied before the Labour Court receipt of any communication dated 08.05.2002 withdrawing the request for VRS. The Appellant had filed an application for a direction to call for the records from the Management including the letter dated 08.05.2002. This was rejected by the Labour Court holding that if the Appellant was asserting a fact, the onus lay on him to prima facie establish that fact before the Management could be called upon or any directions given. On 09.05.2002 itself pursuant to communication of the acceptance of his VRS the Appellant received approximately Rs. 3,00,000.00 without any protest or prejudice. Subsequently other legitimate entitlements have also been paid and received by him without protest or prejudice.