[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Mosabani Mines Labour Union vs Hindustan Copper Limited on 27 January, 2026

Author: Deepak Roshan

Bench: Deepak Roshan

                                                           2026:JHHC:2187

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    W.P.(L) No. 3774 of 2010
                                .........

Mosabani Mines Labour Union, a Registered Trade Union affiliated to INTUC through its G.L. Secretary Sanjay Kr. Bose, S/o Bikash Chandra Bose, having its office at Surda New Township, P.S. P.O.Surda, District- Singhbhum East, resident of Hena Bilashhaldih P.S. P.O. Ghatshila, District-Singhbhum East.

..... Petitioner (s) Versus

1. Hindustan Copper Limited, through its Chairman cum Managing Director, Tamra Bhawan, 1, Ashutosh Choudhary Avenue, Kolkata.

2. Hindustan Cooper Limited, Indian Cupper Complex, at and P.O. Musaboni, District-Singhbhum West.

3. General Manager (Personnel), Hindustan Copper Ltd., Indian Cooper Complex, at and P.O. Ghatshila, Mosaboni, District-Singhbhum West.

4. Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Mines Government of India, New Delhi.

5.The Secretary, Ministry of Labour Government of India, New Delhi. ..... Respondent(s) .........

 CORAM:         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
                                .......
        For the Petitioner(s)               : Mr. V.P.Singh, Sr. Adv
                                              Mrs. Bandana Kumari Sinha, Adv
                                              Mrs. Ragini Kumari, Adv
        For the Respondent(s)               : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Adv
                                              Mr. Sankalp Goswami, Adv
                                              Mr. P.K.Pathak, C.G.C.
                                            .........

C.A.V. ON 12/01/2026                        PRONOUNCED ON: 27/01/2026
   1.    Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner being a Trade Union has filed the

instant writ petition seeking grant of arrears of voluntary

retirement which has occurred on account of subsequent

revision of pay scale along with interest.

2026:JHHC:2187

3. Case of the Petitioner

The specific case of the Petitioner-Union is that it is a

registered Trade Union affiliated with Indian Trade Union

Congress having 1200 members and HCL from time to time

on the basis of tripartite settlement has been fixing and

revising the wages of the workman. The 5th Wage Revision

fell due with effect from 01.11.1997; however, in the

meantime, Hindustan Copper Limited sought permission

from the Central Government to close the mines and a

permission for closure of different mines was given in the

following manner:-

(i) 30.09.1998 - Permission for closure of Banalopa and Bedia Mines was granted.

(ii) 2002 - Permission for closure of Rakha Mine was granted.

(iii) 31.01.2001 - Permission for closure of Pathargora and Kenduadih mines was granted.

(iv) 16.06.2003 - Permission for closure of Surda Mines was granted.

(v) 16.06.2003 - Permission for closure of Mosabani mines was granted.

4. In the permission so granted, the Central Government

incorporated one condition which mandated the

Management to ensure payment of statutory dues and VRS

benefits as per approved norms before retrenchment of the

workmen. The Petitioner-Union, thereafter relied upon on a

Circular dated 20.02.1995 wherein the Management

2026:JHHC:2187

informed all concerned employees who have retired or will

be retiring under Company's Voluntary Retirement Scheme

would be entitled to wage revision/pay revision as and

when the same is finalized (Annexure 4).

It is an admitted case of the petitioner that all its

members took voluntary retirement before the year 2003

and after they got separated under the Voluntary

Retirement Scheme, the Company's Wage Settlement took

place on 19.04.2006 which covered the period 01.11.1997

to 30.10.2007 and on the basis of the afore-referred

Circular dated 20.02.1995, the petitioner claimed that all

its members who had separated under the Voluntary

Retirement Scheme are entitled to the benefit of wage

revision.

The petitioner in support of their claim has brought on

record by way of Annexure-5, the Approved Wage

Settlement. Bare perusal of Clause (viii) of the same would

show that as per the agreed wage settlement, no decision

for payment of arrears for the period 01.11.1997 to

31.07.2004 had been taken and the actual monetary

benefits of the wage revision for the period 01.08.2004 to

31.03.2006 would be paid with effect from 1st of August

2006.

5. Case of the Respondents

2026:JHHC:2187

The Respondents have contended that the employees

separating under a Voluntary Retirement Scheme constitute

a separate class in themselves. The employees who had

opted for voluntary retirement; admittedly have received all

benefits payable under the scheme and it is not open for

them to claim the benefits of a pay revision which has taken

place subsequent to their separation, though with a

retrospective date.

7. The other objection which the respondents have raised

is that the individual workmen, who had opted for voluntary

retirement who were 414 in number, had raised a separate

industrial dispute being Reference Case No.13 of 2017

claiming the benefit of pay revision after having separated

under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Initially, the

Award was passed in favour of the workmen on 28.09.2022

which was assailed by the Management of HCL in W.P. (L)

No. 406 of 2023 and this Court vide its judgment dated 11th

March 2025 quashed and set aside the Award and

remanded the matter back. While relying on the said

judgment, the contention of the respondents is that once

the individual workmen who are also the members of the

Petitioner-Union have already raised an industrial dispute,

it's not open for the Petitioner-Union to claim similar benefit

by filing a separate writ application.

2026:JHHC:2187

8. The respondents had relied upon a judgment of this

Court passed in W.P. (L) No. 7240 of 2019 dated

13.10.2020; wherein this Court relying on the several

judgments have held as under:-

"13. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submission of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that admittedly the order passed by the Labour Court is perverse and de hors the Rules for the following reasons:-

i. it is a settled principles of law that voluntary retirement scheme speaks of a package. One either takes it or rejects it. While opting for the same, presumably the employee takes into consideration the future implication also. The employees who opted for voluntary retirement, make a planning for the future.

ii. At the time of giving option, they know where they stand. At that point of time they did not anticipate that they would get any benefit of revision of scales of pay and therefore cannot claim the subsequent benefits of pay revision, which has been given a retrospective effect. iii. There is no dispute with respect to the facts whether an employee opting for voluntary retirement can subsequently claim the benefits of pay revision in lieu of implementation of NCWA-VI. An employee retiring under voluntary retirement scheme cannot claim benefits of revision of pay scale implemented subsequent to his separation."

9. The Respondents have also relied the judgment

rendered in the case of H.E.C. Voluntary Retd. Employees

Welfare Society & Anr. Versus Heavy Engineering

Corporation Ltd., reported in (2006) 3 SCC 708

10. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances

and after hearing Ld. Counsel for the rival parties this

Court is of the considered opinion that so far as the

Circular dated 20.02.1995, whereby the Management

informed all the employees who have retired or will be

retiring under the Company's Voluntary Retirement Scheme

that they would get the benefits of wage revision is

concerned; same has no application in the instant case,

2026:JHHC:2187

inasmuch as, the said Circular gives reference to the then

voluntary retirement in vogue and at the time when the said

Circular was issued. Neither anybody contemplated that

there would be a new voluntary retirement scheme after

2002; nor the said Circular can be made applicable to a

subsequent Voluntary Retirement Scheme. The said

Circular was confined to the Voluntary Retirement Scheme

in force in the year 1995 when the said Circular was issued

and cannot be made applicable to any subsequent

voluntary retirement scheme.

11. In the case of H.E.C. Voluntary Retd. Employees

Welfare Society & Anr. (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has

held that Voluntary Retirement Scheme is a package and

anyone can accept it or reject it. Relevant paragraphs 18,

19, 20, 21 and 22 are quoted hereinbelow;

"18. The Voluntary Retirement Scheme speaks of a package. One either takes it or rejects it. While offering to opt for the same, presumably the employee takes into consideration the future implication also.

"19. It is not in dispute that the effect of such Voluntary Retirement Scheme is cessation of jural relationship between the employer and the employee. Once an employee opts to retire voluntarily, in terms of the contract he cannot raise a claim for a higher salary unless by reason of a statute he becomes entitled thereto. He may also become entitled thereto even if a policy in that behalf is formulated by the Company. "20. We have indicated hereinbefore that before floating such a scheme both the employer as also the employee take into account the financial implications in relation thereto. When an invitation to offer is floated by reason of such a scheme, the employer must have carried out exercises as regards the financial implication thereof. If a large number of employees opt therefor, having regard to the financial constraints, an employer may not accept offers of a number of employees and may confine the same to only a section of optees. Similarly when an employer accepts the recommendations of a Pay Revision Committee, having regard to the financial implications thereof it may accept or reject the whole or a part of it. The question of inclusion of employees who form a special class by themselves, would, thus, depend upon the object and purport thereof. The appellants herein do not fall either in clause 3.2 or 3.3 expressly. They would be

2026:JHHC:2187

treated to be included in clause 3.2, provided they are considered on a par with superannuated employees. They would be excluded if they are treated to be discharged employees.

12. Further, in the case of Manoj Bhai N. Shah &

Ors., Versus Union of India & Ors., reported in (2015) 4

SCC 482, similar views have been reiterated by the

Hon'ble Apex Court. For brevity, the relevant paras are

extracted hereinbelow:

31. In the instant case, it is crystal clear that the employees had already opted under the Scheme--under a specially made scheme, which was framed only with an intention to reduce future expenditure of the employers. If all these benefits are given to the persons who had already opted under the Scheme and had retired, the real purpose with which the Scheme had been framed would be frustrated.

32. We do not agree with the submission made on behalf of the employees that action of the employers in not giving pay rise to the employees in pursuance of the notification is discriminatory in nature.

The employees who retired under the Scheme form a separate class of employees who were given many benefits, which are not given to the employees retiring in normal course. If they all form a separate class, by no stretch of imagination can it be said that all those who retired under the Scheme and those who retired in normal course, are similarly situated. Thus, in our opinion, there is no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in the instant case.

33. Similarly, there is no violation of the principle of equal pay for equal work. True, that those who retired under the Scheme did the same work which was being done by those who retired in normal course, but one cannot forget the fact that those who retired under the Scheme got substantially higher retirement benefits. In the circumstances, we do not accept the said submission also.

13. In the instant case also, it is evident that Circular

gives reference to the then voluntary retirement scheme

in vogue and at the time when the said Circular was

issued. All the employees had already opted under the

Scheme--under a specially made scheme, which was

framed only with an intention to reduce future

expenditure of the employers. If all these benefits are

given to the persons who had already opted under the

2026:JHHC:2187

Scheme and had retired, the real purpose with which the

Scheme had been framed would be frustrated.

14. The issue in hand was also deliberated by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra State

Financial Corporation Ex-Employees Association & ors.

Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in (2023) 11

SCC 186; wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as

under:

40. However, in the opinion of this Court, employees who secured VRS benefits and left the service of MSFC voluntarily during this period, stand on a different footing. They cannot claim parity with those who worked continuously, discharged their functions, and thereafter superannuated. VRS employees chose to opt and leave the service of the Corporation; they found the VRS offer beneficial to them. Apart from the normal terminal benefits they were entitled to, the additional amount each of them was given -- was an ex gratia amount, equal to a month's salary for each completed year of service. Other retired employees were never given such amounts. This has been emphasised in A.K. Bindal v. Union of India [A.K. Bindal v. Union of India, (2003) 5 SCC 163 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 620] : (SCC pp. 186-87, paras 33-34) "33. The Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) which is sometimes called Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS) is introduced by companies and industrial establishments in order to reduce the surplus staff and to bring in financial efficiency. The office memorandum dated 5-5-2000 issued by the Government of India provided that for sick and unviable units, the VRS package of the Department of Heavy Industry will be adopted. Under this Scheme an employee is entitled to an ex gratia payment equivalent to 45 days' emoluments (pay + DA) for each completed year of service or the monthly emoluments at the time of retirement multiplied by the balance months of service left before the normal date of retirement, whichever is less. This is in addition to terminal benefits. The Government was conscious about the fact that the pay scales of some of the PSUs had not been revised with effect from 1-1-1992 and therefore it has provided adequate compensation in that regard in the second VRS which was announced for all Central public sector undertakings on 6-11-2001. Clause (a) of the Scheme reads as under:

(a) Ex gratia payment in respect of employees on pay scales at 1-1-1987 and 1-1-1992 levels, computed on their existing pay scales in accordance with the extant Scheme, shall be increased by 100% and 50% respectively.

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

2026:JHHC:2187

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."

41. For the above reasons, it is held that VRS employees cannot claim parity with others who retired upon achieving the age of superannuation. Likewise, those who ceased to be in employment, for the reason of termination, or their dismissal, etc. would not be entitled to the benefit of pay revision.

42. In view of the above findings, the impugned judgment and order [Maharashtra State Financial Corpn. Ex-Employees Assn. v. State of Maharashtra, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 21341] is hereby set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed, to the extent that those who retired from the services of MSFC between 1-1-2006 to 29-3-2010, and the legal heirs/representatives of those who died during that period, shall be entitled to arrears based on pay revision, accepted by the Corporation. The Corporation is directed to pay interest @ 8% p.a. on these arrears from 1-4-2010 till the date of this judgment. These amounts shall be calculated and disbursed to those individuals within eight weeks from today. The appeal is partly allowed, in the above terms. There shall be no order on costs.

Emphasis Supplied

15. Having regard to the above discussions and in view of

the settled principle of law as has been reiterated in the

catena of decisions referred to hereinabove, the members of

the petitioner-Union who have retired under a Voluntary

Retirement Scheme constitutes a separate class in

themselves and who have availed the benefit of the

Voluntary Retirement Scheme consciously and, therefore,

cannot subsequently claim benefits of a pay revision which

took place subsequent to their separation; more so when

there was no such assurance given in the Voluntary

Retirement Scheme under which they have got separated