Madras High Court
S.Kuppuraj vs The Presiding Officer on 5 June, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 05.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.P.No. 31315 of 2014
S.Kuppuraj ... Petitioner
..Vs..
1. The Presiding Officer
III Additional Labour Court
Chennai – 600 104.
2. The Management of
Sri Ram Fibers (P) Ltd.,
Manali, Chennai – 600068. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of
the first respondent order passed on 20.09.2012 in C.P.No. 737 of 2007 and
quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to pay the
amount as per clause 10 of settlement dated 31.01.1985 under ''DEATH
AND RETIREMENT BENEFIT FUND”.
For Petitioner :: Mr. S.T.Varadarajulu
For 2nd Respondent :: Mr. G.Anand Gopalan
for M/s. T.S.Gopalan & Co
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
ORDER
The case of the petitioner is that a settlement under Section 18(1) of
the Industrial Disputes Act was entered into between the Management and
the workmen on 31.01.1985. Paragraph No.10 of the said settlement deals
with 'Death and Retirement Benefit. The said clause reads as follows:-
“ Death and Retirement Benefit:
The workmen and the Management agree to
discontinue the Death Relief Fund and
Villages Development Scheme constituted
under the terms of the settlement dated
27.02.82. Consequently, the contributions
made by the Management and the workmen
under these scheme will cease forthwith and
the Management agrees to pay to each
workman Rs.15/- per month, which the
workmen agree to receive. The workmen
agree to constitute a Death and Retirement
Benefit fund under a scheme to be formulated
and administered by them. They further
authorise the Management to recovery from
their wages a sum of Rs.20/- per month
towards this scheme and pay the same to the
Death and Retirement Benefit Fund.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. Subsequently, the Company offered voluntary retirement
scheme and the said offer was accepted by the petitioner on 31.03.1995.
According to the petitioner, a sum of Rs.20/- was deducted every month
from his salary. It was later on increased to Rs.40/-. According to him, the
factum that he had accepted voluntary retirement scheme does not obviate
the liability of the respondent to return his contribution to the death cum
retirement fund. He would rely upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in
A.Satyanarayana Reddy and Others Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Chennai reported in (2016) 9 SCC 462. Since the amount was not paid, an
application was filed under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, in C.P.No. 737 of 2007.
3. The Management had argued that, on and after the acceptance
of the voluntary retirement scheme, nothing remained payable and therefore,
the said C.P.No. 737 of 2007 was untenable.
4. The first respondent came to a conclusion that C.P.No. 737 of
2007 is not maintainable and accordingly, dismissed the same.
5. The factual matrix is extremely simple. Here is a case where an
employee accepted voluntary retirement scheme offered by the Management
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and went away on voluntary retirement on 31.03.1995. The scheme of
voluntary retirement is not disputed by both sides and has been placed
before me. The relevant clause is clause 4.13. It reads as follows:-
“ VRS SCHEME OF THE RESPONDENT
4.13 It is clarified that payment made under the
scheme to employees shall be in full and final
settlement and complete satisfaction of all the
claims of the said employees and that no further
amount will be claimed by the said employees
against the company once they have received all
payment/s under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme
of the Company.”
6. The crucial words are “complete satisfaction” of all the claims
and “no further amount” will be claimed by the employees against the
Company. This clause kicks in once the employee have received all
payments under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme of the Company. This is
a contract entered into between the employer and the employee. The fact
that the employee had accepted that all his claims have been satisfied and
that no further amount will be claimed by him has been recorded. If there
had been any further claim, it would or should have been made at that point
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of time. Further to maintain a CP, there has to be an unsatisfied pre-existing
right. In the present case, it is not such a right.
7. Turning to the Judgment cited by Mr.S.T.Varadarajulu, I have
to point out in that case, the scheme did not cover lay off compensation,
subsistence allowances etc. Therefore, the Supreme Court came to a
conclusion that items that are not covered by the Voluntary Retirement
Scheme can still be claimed by the workmen.
8. As I already pointed out that the VRS scheme includes the term
“all the claims” which is positive in content and at the same time, the very
same clause states “no further amount will be claimed” which is negative in
content. This covers any claim that would have been due and accruable to
the workmen which he had given up in the Voluntary Retirement Scheme.
Voluntary Retirement Scheme is a golden handshake and it is possible that if
the workmen had made a claim for any further amount, the scheme itself
might not have been accepted. Having entered into the scheme with open
eyes, it is too late in the day to recant from the same. Apart from these
issues, neither death nor retirement has taken place. Hence, the demand is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
untenable. Apart from that, as rightly pointed out by Mr. G.Anand, as to
how a sum of Rs.35,000/- was held due and payable has not been made
clear in C.P.No. 737 of 2007.
9. In the light of the above, I do not find any merits in this Writ
Petition. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
05.06.2023
vsg
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking / Non Speaking Order
To
1. The Presiding Officer
III Additional Labour Court
Chennai – 600 104.
2. The Management of
Sri Ram Fibers (P) Ltd.,
Manali, Chennai – 600068.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.,
vsg
W.P.No. 31315 of 2014
05.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
