[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Pabitra Kumar Behera And Others vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opp. ... on 8 December, 2025
Bench: K.R. Mohapatra, Savitri Ratho
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 08-Dec-2025 17:25:20
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 8429 OF 2024
Pabitra Kumar Behera and others .... Petitioners
Mr. Susanta Dash, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opp. Parties
Mr. Siba Narayan Biswal,
Additional Standing Counsel
(For Opp. Party No.1)
Mr. Bijoy Das Mohapatra, Advocate
(For Opp. Party No.2)
Mr. Narendra Kishore Mishra, Senior Advocate
being assisted by
Mr. Nitish Kumar Mishra, Advocate
(For Opp. Party No.3)
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
Order No. 08.12.2025
7. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. In course of argument, Mr. Mishra, learned Senior
Advocate appearing for Opposite Party No.3 places reliance on
the case of M/s. Avtec Limited -v- Avinash Sharma and others,
[Civil Appeal No.2354 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (c)
No.16863 of 2019)], decided on 12th February, 2025, wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 08-Dec-2025 17:25:20
"11. In our view, reversing the discretionary
order by the High Court on the aforementioned
findings is not justified. It is to be observed that once
the Labour Court in the facts of the case exercised
equitable jurisdiction, the order directing to deposit
the VRS amount received by the employee is based
discretion, bringing the parties equitable footing and
to decide the justifiability of sanction of VRS, it did
not warrant interference.
12. In our considered opinion, the grant of benefit
the VRS has nothing do with the retrenchment of an
employee. Therefore, the High court was not justified
while interfering with the order of Labour Court.
Thus, after giving anxious consideration to the
argument of the employee that the deposit cannot be
mandatory in the light of the judgment of the Bombay
High Court in Saint Gobain Sekurit India Ltd.
(Supra), in our view, there cannot be any doubt on
the said analogy. In particular, in the facts and
circumstances of that case, the Labour Court had
dismissed the application of the management seeking
deposit of the amount by passing an unreasoned
order. In that context, the High Court, while setting
aside the said order and remitting the matter to the
Labour Court, had observed that a direction against
the employee to deposit the VRS benefit cannot be
passed as a mandatory pre-condition nor can such
an order be passed without application of mind or
without discussing the facts and circumstances of
each case.
13. xxx xxx xxx
14. In our view, VRS and retrenchment are two
different aspects for a workman. VRS is under a
scheme where retirement is voluntarily accepted by
the workman, while retrenchment is a process
wherein the management without following a
procedure takes action. Once under a voluntary
scheme, applications were voluntarily submitted by
the workmen and the amount has been received in
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 08-Dec-2025 17:25:20
their account, in such a situation, in challenge the
voluntary retirement, if direction has been issued by
the Labour Court exercising equity jurisdiction to
adjudicate the issue, in our view, the High Court's
interference was not warranted."
3. Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the Petitioners though
initially argued that the ratio decided in M/s. Avtec Limited
(supra) is not applicable to the instant case, but subsequently
prayed for an adjournment to go through the same and make
submission.
4. Put up this matter on 21st January, 2026, as prayed for.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
(Savitri Ratho)
ms Judge
