K.K.Mathur And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 4400 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                        W.P.(C) No. 9953-70/2006

%                                                  25th September, 2013

K.K.MATHUR AND ORS.                                     ..... Petitioners
                 Through:              Mr. K.N. Rai, Advocate with Mr. S.N.
                                       Rai, Advocate.
                         versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                            ..... Respondents

                  Through:             Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate for
                                       respondent No.1.
                                       Mr. Sushant Kumar, Advocate for
                                       respondent No.2.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

C.M. No.13459/2013 (under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC)

For the reasons stated in the application the same is allowed and

the review petition bearing No.252/2013 is restored.

C.M. stands disposed of.

C.M. No.13460/2013

For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing the

review petition is condoned.

C.M. stands disposed of.

Review Petition No.252/2013 and W.P.(C) No.9953/2006

1. I have heard the counsel for the petitioners on the main writ

petition itself because it is contended that petitioners did not give any

consent for withdrawal of the writ petition on 13.2.2013.

2. The facts of the case are that petitioners were employees of

respondent No.2/Indian Tourism Development Corporation. They were

posted at hotel Ranjit which was run by the respondent No.2. Under a

scheme of disinvestment, respondent No.3 was disinvested by the

Government and the same was taken over by the private investors including

respondent No.3-Hotel Ranjit. This took place around the year 2002.

Petitioners therefore became the employees of the private management

which took over the respondent No.3-hotel. Respondent No.3 thereafter

took out a Voluntary Retirement Scheme and petitioners accepted amounts

under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme in the year 2002 and thereafter

ceased to be employees of the respondent No.3. This writ petition has been

thereafter filed in the year 2006 claiming the following reliefs:-

"a) issue writ of mandamus or any other writ/direction/order of the similar nature whereby directing the respondents authorities to provide reemployment to the petitioners; and/or

b) issue writ of certiorari or any other/direction/order of the similar nature, whereby quashing the Hotel Ranjit Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2002 taken out by the respondent No.3 on 14-11- 2002 being null and void; and/or

c) issue writ of mandamus or any other writ/direction/order of the similar nature whereby directing the respondents authorities to provide full pension to the petitioners who had been retired under the VRS Scheme; and/or

d) Issue writ of mandamus or any other writ/direction/order of the similar nature whereby directing the respondents authorities to provide medical benefits as per the Memorandum of Settlement dated 15-06- 2002 and Office order dated 24-07-2000 and return the amount to ESI deposited by the petitioners;

e) Pass any other and further order/s as this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case"

3. The first relief which is sought is that respondents should

provide re-employment to the petitioners. Respondents are Union of India

which is respondent No.1, Indian Tourism Development Corporation which

is respondent No.2 and Hotel Ranjit which is respondent No.3.

4. Surely, Union of India cannot be asked to give any employment

to the petitioners because no law is cited and nor does any law exists that if

persons who were employees of autonomous organizations which were

disinvested and such persons received monetary benefits under the VRS

scheme from the private employer, thereafter, merely where such employees

claim that they are in financial difficulty, Union of India must give them

employment.

5. So far as respondent No.2-Indian Tourism Development

Corporation is concerned once again it is not understood as to how from an

erstwhile employer, employment can be claimed once employment was

transferred to the respondent No.3, petitioners acted on the same and

thereafter took VRS benefits from the private employer. Again there is no

law that an autonomous organization of the State is bound to provide any

employment to the employees who were employees of the erstwhile

autonomous organization and which thereafter became a private

organization. Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of BALCO

Employees Union (Regd.) Vs. Union of India and Ors. (2002) 2 SCC 333

has held that employees have no right to question the disinvestment scheme

of the Government. In any case, petitioners having taken benefits from the

private employer again cannot claim re-employment from the respondent

No.2. A Court of law is approached, whether in a suit or in a writ petition,

to enforce legal rights. No such legal rights are found to exist as per the

averments made in the writ petition because no provision of law or statute is

cited and surely cannot even exist for providing petitioners employment as is

sought in this case.

6. Respondent No.3 which is private employer again surely cannot

be asked to give employment because petitioners have taken from

respondent No.3 voluntary retirement benefit amounts and enjoyed the same

since the year 2002 till the year 2006 when the writ petition was filed. In the

judgment in the case of A.K.Bindal Vs. Union of India (2003) 5 SCC 163

Supreme Court has said that on taking of VRS benefits, and which is a

golden handshake, the relationship of employer and employee is severed and

thereafter no rights can be claimed against the erstwhile employer. Para 34

of this judgment reads as under:-

"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 business world it is known as 'Golden Handshake'. The main purpose of paying this amount is to bring about a compete 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." (underlining added)

7. Therefore, none of the respondents can be asked to provide

employment to the petitioners.

8. Second relief which is claimed is that petitioners seek that VRS

scheme taken out by the respondent No.3 in the year 2002, be declared as

null and void. This is claimed on the ground that respondent No.2 could not

have disinvested in the respondent No.3-hotel. In my opinion, petitioners

are barred from raising this argument on two grounds. One is the ratio of the

Supreme Court in the case of BALCO Employees Union (supra) and the

second is that petitioners acted upon the transfer not only by continuing their

services with the respondent No.3, but also by taking VRS benefits from

respondent No.3. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioners to

claim annulment of VRS scheme of which they took benefits almost four

year prior to the writ petition by receiving substantial amounts. Petitioners

are squarely hit by the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of

A.K. Bindal (supra).

9. Third relief which is claimed is that respondents should provide

full pension to the petitioners as was payable when the petitioners were

serving the respondent No.2. This argument again will stand rejected in

terms of discussion above and especially in view of ratio of the judgment of

the Supreme Court in the case of A.K. Bindal (supra).

10. The final relief which is claimed is that petitioners claim

medical benefits as per the Memorandum of Settlement dated 15.6.2000

entered into between the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the office order dated

24.7.2000 issued by the respondent No.2 before disinvestment. Refund is

also claimed of ESI amounts deposited by the petitioners. Once again this

relief will be barred in view of ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in

the case of A.K. Bindal (supra) because Supreme Court has clearly held that

once persons take voluntary retirement benefits, and which is a golden

handshake, the relationship of employer and employee is severed for all

times to come and thereafter employees who have taken VRS cannot again

claim any monetary benefits from the erstwhile employer. As already stated

above, petitioners took VRS benefits in the year 2002 and have filed this

petition in the year 2006 without any legal cause of action.

11. Finally, the petitioners argue that respondent No.2 is an

institution which is now covered under the schedule of institutions disputes

of which with its employees have to be decided by the Central

Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and therefore this petition ought to be

transferred to CAT. In my opinion, this argument is only an argument of

desperation because petitioners severed their relationships with the

respondent Nos.2 and 3 and more particularly respondent No.3 way back in

the year 2002 and therefore the issue has nothing to do with the aspect of „in

relation to service‟ as found in Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals

Act, 1985. In any case, I do not find that this issue at any time was urged till

the writ petition was disposed of, actually by consent but which consent the

petitioners now claim they never gave and therefore I have heard the

petitioners on merits.

12. There are certain frivolous litigations which lead to unneceesary

waste of judicial time. Present is one such litigation. Petitioners very

conveniently took huge amounts of VRS benefits. They enjoyed the benefits

of the same. After many years suddenly petitioners claim that they are in

bad financial condition and therefore they should be re-employed. Of

course, I have already stated above, that the law which entitles the

petitioners to seek re-employment is not pointed out to me. It is necessary

that a strong message be sent to frivolous litigations which are initiated in

Courts.

13. The writ petition is therefore dismissed with costs of `50,000/-.

Costs can be proportionately recovered by the respondents in accordance

with law.

SEPTEMBER 25, 2013                            VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne