Vindyachal Prasad Gupta vs Modern Food Industries (I) Ltd.
2007 Latest Caselaw 2237 Del

JUDGMENT

J.M. Malik, J.

1. The petitioner's case is this. The petitioner was employed with the respondent, M/s Modern Food Industries (I) Ltd, on the post of Operative Grade II with effect from 12th May, 1978. The respondent was earlier a Central Publc Undertaking which was disinvested by the Central Government and majority shares were sold to Hindustan Liver Limited. On 12th June, 2001 the respondent with ulterior motive introduced a clause of transfer in the certified standing order in a totally clandestine and unjustified manner without following the due process and mandatory requirement while working in cahoots with the Federation of Union. Due to the fear of the above-said clause of transfer, the petitioner was forced to sign on a pre-typed format of Voluntary Retirement Scheme (for short VRS). The workman reported the matter to the Labour Authorities. Thereafter, the Management came with a notice dated 13th July, 2001, for giving an opportunity to withdraw the said VRS, which was totally an eye wash. The relevant portion of the said notice is reproduced as follows:

Any workman who has applied for the VRS and been released from the Company who feels that he has been forced into taking benefit under the VRS, may return the money in full within 7 days (i.e. on or before July 20, 2001) and thereafter rejoin work.

2. On 16th July, 2001, the petitioner reached the office in order to join the duties with his application dated 14th July, 2001 as he had not signed the VRS voluntarily but the Management refused to take him back on duties.

3. Under these circumstances, the petitioner raised the industrial dispute regarding the termination of service by the management. The following reference for adjudication was made to the Labour Court:

Whether Sh. Vindyanchal Prasad Gupta S/o Sh. Harakh Nath voluntarily opted for VRS and received the dues in full and final as per the said scheme or his services have been terminated in the garb of VRS and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?

4. The respondent/management defended the case before the Labour Court. The Labour Court vide its award dated 3rd February, 2007 came to the conclusion that the petitioner/workman had voluntarily opted for VRS and his services were not terminated by the Management. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition for passing appropriate orders and directions in the nature of writ of certiorari/mandamus with the prayer to quash/set aside the award passed by the Labour Court and direction to reinstate the petitioner on his old service along with full back wages and interest, etc.

5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The learned Counsel for the petitioner/workman vehemently argued that the petitioner was made to sign the VRS under coercion. He has drawn my attention towards an application dated 14th July, 2001, which was purported to have been written by the petitioner to the General Manager of the respondent. This application was proved as Ex.WW1/4 before the Labour Court. The relevant portion of the English translation of this application is reproduced as follows:

Humble request is that I was taken on duty in Delhi Bread Unit-I on 12.5.78 as a casual and since 23.5.83 I have been working as a regular employee. Now from 30.6.01 due to fear of my transfer I have tender my resignation letter and have taken VRS. Now I want to join my duty from 16.7.01. But my transfer cannot be done from this undertaking to other undertaking.

Hence I request yourself that myself is ready to work on my post from 19.7.01. I may be permitted to join from 16.7.2001 and my service may be treated as continuing since 12.5.78. I may not be transferred from the unit or from my post.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also drew my attention towards another letter dated 16th July, 2001, written by the petitioner to the General Manager. Its English translation submitted by counsel for the petitioner runs as follows:

It is humbly prayed that I have sent a letter dated 14.7.01 by Fax for joining of my duty. I have given the copy of said letter to the Managing Director, Head Office on today dated 16.7.01. Thereafter I came here in your office for joining of my duty from today i.e. 16.7.01. This letter I was writing you after you have forced me to sign on same paper. Because I do not know that what you might have written on that paper, the same be deemed to be cancelled. (cooked facts). Also, neither you did receive my letter nor any other employee of your office. If you misuse my signature for any purpose except this letter then I have been forced to take legal recourse.

It is, therefore, you are requested to allow me to join on my duty on the same post in Delhi bread Unit-I as per your signed notice dated 13.7.01 and whatever my signature which had been taken on blank paper may be deemed to be cancelled.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the award passed by the Labour Court is legally not tenable. He prayed that the order of the Labour Court be set aside and the petitioner be permitted to be reinstated on service with full back wages.

8. Instead of touching the heart of the problem, the counsel for the petitioner laid emphasis on unimportant issues. As a matter of fact, the nub of problem lies somewhere else. The case of the Management is that the workman took the VRS by signing the Voluntary Retirement Scheme papers on 30th June, 2001 and accordingly, he was retired from the services. The petitioner was paid a sum of Rs. 2,11,240/- vide cheque No. 620672 dated 30th June, 2001, which was duly received and encasehed by the workman. The Management gave opportunity to its employees who had taken VRS to join duties with the condition that they must return the money received at the time of VRS This is clear from the notice dated 13th July, 2001 detailed above.

9. The counsel for the petitioner did not pick up a conflict with all these facts and circumstances. The allegation that the petitioner has signed the VRS under coercion is a ruse to make sure that he gets back the above-said reinstatement. The plea of coercion is not to be taken seriously because of the following facts. The letter dated 14th July, 2001 Ex.WW1/4 itself goes to show that the petitioner had taken VRS due to the fear of transfer. It is clear that he had signed the VRS with open eyes. Secondly, the petitioner accepted the cheque in the sum of Rs. 2,11,240/-. Thirdly, he got it encashed. Fourthly, in his above-said two applications, he has never signified his willingness to return the above-said amount. It is surprising to note that the petitioner wants to eat his cake and have it too. On the one hand, he does not want to return the money received from the Management and on the other hand, he wants that he should be reinstated. It is difficult to fathom as to why did he accept the cheque in the sum of Rs. 2,11,240/- given by the Management to him as full and final settlement of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. He has not given any undertaking in the entire writ that he would return the said amount with interest to the respondent.

10. The Apex Court in an authority reported in A.K. Bindal and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. was pleased to hold,

34. This shows that a considerable amount is to be paid to an employee ex gratia besides the terminal benefits in case he opts for voluntary retirement under the Scheme and his option is accepted. The amount is paid not for doing any work or rendering any service. It is paid in lieu of the employee himself leaving the services of the company or the industrial establishment and foregoing all his claims or rights in the same. It is a package deal of give and take. That is why in the business world it is known as golden handshake. The main purpose of paying this amount is to bring about a complete cessation of the jural relationship between the employer and the employee. After the amount is paid and the employee ceases to be under the employment of the company or the undertaking, he leaves with all his rights and there is no question of his again agitating for any kind of his past rights with his erstwhile employer including making any claim with regard to enhancement of pay scale for an earlier period. If the employee is still permitted to raise a grievance regarding enhancement of pay scale from a retrospective date, even after he has opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme and has accepted the amount paid to him, the whole purpose of introducing the Scheme would be totally frustrated.

35. The contention that the employees opted for VRS under any kind of compulsion is not worthy of acceptance. The petitioners are officers of the two Companies and are mature enough to weigh the pros and cons of the options which were available to them. They could have waited and pursued their claim for revision of pay scale without opting for VRS. However, they in their wisdom thought that in the fact situation VRS was a better option available and chose the same. After having applied for VRS and taken the money it is not open to them to contend that they exercised the option under any kind of compulsion. In view of the fact that nearly ninety-nine per cent of employee availed of the VRS Scheme and have left the Companies (FCI and HFC), the writ petition no longer survives and has become infructuous.

11. The above-cited judgment was followed by this Court in case reported in V.K. Malhotra v. Chairman and Managing Director, Rural Electrification Corporation Limited and Ors. , wherein it was held,

12. There is yet another good reason to deny this belated claim sought to be made in 2004. The respondents had offered voluntary retirement scheme. Petitioner duly opted for the same vide his letter of 12th March, 2003. It was duly accepted on 1st August, 2003 and he had been permitted to retire w.e.f. 31st August, 2003 under the REC Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Petitioner duly received his ex gratia payment under the scheme equivalent to 49 months pay and other benefits totaling Rs. 14,43,159/-. This is apart from CPF and other amounts totaling above Rs. 10 lakhs. Petitioner now seeking enforcement in the writ petition of his claim for pay revision and promotion cannot be permitted to do so in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.K. Bindal and Anr v. Union of India ....

12. Moreover, this Court has decided the case of another employee of the respondent, M/s Modern Food Industries (I) Ltd, in WP(C) No. 6830/2003 titled as Girish Chandra Upreti and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. decided on 17th May, 2004. The facts of this case are almost similar. Its relevant paragraphs run as follows:

13. Admittedly, the petitioners never returned the benefit which they had received under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. The respondent company had permitted the employees to withdraw their offer seeking voluntary retirement, even post acceptance, but with a condition. The condition was that the benefit received under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme would be returned. Admittedly, petitioner No. 1 has received Rs. 2,40,552/- + Rs. 35,585/- as the benefit under the scheme. Petitioner No. 2 has received the sum of Rs. 2,26,373/- + Rs. 35,585/- as the benefit under the scheme. The petitioners have not tendered the said amount to the respondents.

14. I find no merits in the petition. the same is accordingly dismissed.

13. The contentions raised by the petitioner do not merit consideration in view of the facts and circumstances as recited above. In the result, the writ petition is hereby dismissed in limini.

A copy of this order be sent to the Labour Court forthwith.