Surjeet Singh & Ors. vs Jet Air India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 4562 Del

$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                            Judgment delivered on: 17th September, 2014

+                               W.P.(C) No.4665 /2012

      SURJEET SINGH & ORS.                               ..... Petitioners
                    Represented by:          Ms.Amita Gupta, Advocate.

                         Versus

      JET AIR INDIA PVT. LTD. & ORS.            ..... Respondents
                     Represented by: Mr.Alok Bhasin and
                                     Ms.Poonam Das, Advocate
                                     for Respondent No.1.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

W.P.(C) No.4665 /2012

1. Vide the present petition, the petitioners are seeking the following directions:-

"(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ/order or direction of appropriate nature for quashing the impugned award dated 30.11.2011 passed by Dr R.K. Yadav, Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Karkardooma Courts Complex, New Delhi and published on 2011 in the Official Gazette by the Central Gazette;

(b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ/order/direction in appropriate nature directing the management to take back the petitioners on duty with

continuity of service and full back wages and all incidental service benefits.

Alternatively issue directions to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Karkardooma Courts Complex, New Delhi to hear the matter afresh and decide the same in conformity with law."

2. Case of the petitioner before this Court is that the petitioners have received compensation qua retrenchment only and they have not received the retrial benefits as per Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS).

3. Case of the petitioners is that the petitioners approached the Conciliation Officer regarding their miserable conditions in service. The Additional Labour Commissioner (C), New Delhi vide its letter dated 12.11.2010 called the management for conciliation under section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 so that an amicable settlement of the dispute could be arrived at. The respondent Jet Air Pvt. Ltd. requested the aforesaid authority for an adjournment on the pretext that they wanted to settle the dispute with the Union of the employees. However, instead of settling the dispute the management on 25.11.2010 at 17.00 hrs. came to the airport cargo office and called all the workers including the petitioners and told them that their services had been terminated and further told them that termination notices will be dispatched to their respective residential addresses. On 26.11.2010, the management individually called the petitioners to their office and forced them to sign on their voluntary retirement applications. The management being in a position of authority told the petitioners that they had no alternative but to sign the VRS applications. The management also threatened to deprive

them(petitioners) of their service benefits if they did not sign the VRS applications.

4. The case of the petitioners before the Tribunal was that by taking applications forcibly for their voluntary retirement which act of the management is violative of the provisions of section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, the petitioners sought reinstatement in the services of the management.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 submits that the amount received by the petitioners is of VRS and same is indicated at page Nos. 52-53 of the paper book. He submits that initially the petitioners were retrenched from the establishment, however, during proceedings before the Conciliation Officer, the petitioners sought VRS and accordingly, the checks as per VRS were handed over to the petitioners, which has already been encashed by them. However, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 disputes this fact.

6. As stated by Ms. Amita Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent No.1 had played fraud upon the petitioners by issuing checks of retrenchment and taking signatures on VRS. Neither the petitioners have received the arrears nor the retiral benefits as per the VRS scheme. However, this issue was not before the Tribunal, accordingly, there is no opinion of the Tribunal on the same.

7. In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioners wishes to withdraw the instant petition with liberty to approach the Industrial Tribunal.

8. Liberty granted as prayed for.

9. Consequently, the instant petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

CM No.1759/2014 With the withdrawal of the petition, the instant application has become infructuous. The same is accordingly dismissed.

SURESH KAIT (JUDGE) September 17, 2014 Sb/RS