Madras High Court
The General Manager vs The Presiding Officer on 21 October, 2024
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
W.A.No.1936 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W.A.No.1936 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.13894 of 2024
1.The General Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Regional Office,
5/54, Greams Road,
Chennai - 600 006.
2.The Managing Director,
Food Corporation of India,
16-20, Barakhamba Lane,
New Delhi - 110 001.
3.The Executive Director (South),
Food Corporation of India,
Zonal Office,
3, Haddows Road,
Chennai - 600 006. ... Appellants
Vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Central Government Industrial,
Tribunal - cum - Labour Court,
Shastri Bhavan, Chennai - 6.
2.K.V.Ananthanarayanan ... Respondents
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1936 of 2024
PRAYER: Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act,
praying to set aside the order of the learned Judge dated 28.08.2023 in
W.P.No.23644 of 2011 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law.
For Appellants : Mr.M.Imthias
For Respondents : R1-Labour Court
Mr.S.Alagammai for R2
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of this Court was delivered by M.S.RAMESH.J)
In exercise of the power under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, the Government had made the following reference to the
Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the demand of the claimants (as per list enclosed), who
retired under Voluntary Retirement Scheme launched by the Food
Corporation of India (Chennai), for payment of notice pay as per
scheme is legal and justified? To what relief are they entitled?"
2.The claim petition has been filed by the second respondent herein,
on his own behalf, as well as on behalf of 49 other similarly placed
applicants, who have authorised him to make their claim on their behalf
also.
3.The applicants had filed their Claim Petitions before the Tribunal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
seeking for three months notice pay under the VRS (Voluntary Retirement
Scheme). The Tribunal had answered the reference in the affirmative,
through its Award dated 30.09.2010, which came to be challenged by the
Corporation (F.C.I.) before the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.
No.23644 of 2011.
4.Before the learned Single Judge, the Corporation (F.C.I.) had taken
a specific stand that when the scheme of Voluntary Retirement stipulates
three months prior notice to be given for VRS, all the 50 persons would not
be entitled for the notice pay since they had not given prior three months
notice for retiring voluntarily. Learned Single Judge had placed reliance on
Clause 7 of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme Application in which, an
option has been given to the workman as to whether they intend to get
relieved immediately or in the alternative, they would want to give three
months notice period.
5.In view of the first portion of Clause 7, the learned Single Judge
had come to the conclusion that a separate prior written notice is not
required for opting to the scheme and accordingly, had declined to interfere
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
with the award of the Labour Court.
6.Clause 7 of the VRS floated by F.C.I., which contains two parts,
reads as follows:
'7.I agree to receive three months notice pay (Pay + DA) in lieu
of the notice period. I may be relieved of the services
immediately
or
I hereby give three months notice for voluntary retirement. I
may be relieved of the services on expiry of the notice period'
7.The aforesaid clause is self explanatory. In the sense that when an
applicant chooses to say 'yes' or 'immediate' to the first part of Clause 7,
they would mean that the applicant intended to receive three months notice
pay in lieu of the notice period.
8.On this aspect, the learned Single Judge had held that all the
employees, who had opted for first part of Clause 7, need not give a prior
separate written request for opting to the scheme.
9.In our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly
come to the conclusion that all the applicants would be entitled for notice
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
pay for the un-expired portion of the notice period.
10.At this juncture, the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation
would submit that out of the 50 applicants, some of them were relieved at a
later stage in view of the option exercised by them in Clause 7 of their
respective applications.
11.We find from the records that the date on which the application
was made, the option exercised by the applicants and the date of relieving
have been spelt out in a tabular statement, which has been marked as
Ex.M1 before the Tribunal.
12.In line with the findings of the learned Single Judge, all the
applicants, who are involved in the present dispute, would be entitled for
the notice pay for the unexpired period of notice as found in Ex.M1. In
other words, all the applicants would be entitled for notice pay of three
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
vga
months, after deducting the period between the date of application till the
date of relieving.
13.With the above clarification, no interference is required to the
Award, as well as the order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, this
Writ Appeal stands closed. No Costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
[M.S.R., J] [M.J.R.,J]
21.10.2024
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
vga
To
The Presiding Officer,
Central Government Industrial,
Tribunal - cum - Labour Court,
Shastri Bhavan, Chennai - 6.
W.A.No.1936 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.13894 of 2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
