Karnataka High Court
The Management Of Glaxosmithkline ... vs Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals ... on 21 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:7571
WP No. 39464 of 2018
C/W WP No. 22896 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 39464 OF 2018 (L-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 22896 OF 2019 (L-RES)
IN WP NO.39464/2018
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGEMENT OF GLAXOSMITHKLINE
PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED,
P.B.NO.1604, DEVANAHALLI ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 036
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER-
EMPLOYEE RELATION
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. C.K. SUBRAHMANYA ADVOCATE FOR
Digitally signed SRI. B.C. PRABHAKAR.,ADVOCATE)
by SHYAMALA
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PHARMACEUTICALS
EMPLOYEES' UNION,
NO.477, 6TH CROSS,
KUVEMPUNAGAR, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 016
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. L. MURALIDHAR PESHWA ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SATHEESHA K.N., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:7571
WP No. 39464 of 2018
C/W WP No. 22896 of 2019
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS LEADING TO THE PASSING OF THE AWARD DATED
26.04.2018, PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL,
BENGALURU, IN I.D.NO.223/2009 (ANNEXURE-K) AND ETC.
IN WP NO.22896/2019
BETWEEN:
WORKMEN,
REPRESENTED BY GENERAL SECRETARY,
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PHARMACEUTICALS
EMPLOYEES UNION (A REGISTERED TRADE UNION,
REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN
TRADE UNIONS ACT),
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 477, 6TH CROSS,
KUVEMPUNAGAR, RAMAMURTHINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 016.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. L. MURALIDHAR PESHWA ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SATHEESHA K.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE MANAGEMENT OF GLAXOSMITHKLINE
PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED,
P.B. NO. 1604, DEVANAHALLI ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 036,
REP BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER-
EMPLOYEE RELATION.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. C.K. SUBRAHMANYA ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. B.C. PRABHAKAR.,ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-CALL FOR THE
RECORDS IN REF. NO. 223/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND ETC.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:7571
WP No. 39464 of 2018
C/W WP No. 22896 of 2019
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Writ Petition No.39464/2018 is preferred by the Management assailing the impugned award, whereby, the Tribunal allowed the claim statement, by answering point No.1 of the reference in favour of the Employees' Union holding that the Union is justified in seeking payment of Dearness Allowance ("DA") in respect of 256 workmen, who have taken voluntary retirement on 30.11.2003, on par with the DA paid to the workmen working at Worli and Thane Company at Mumbai with effect from 01.01.2001.
2. Writ Petition No.22896/2019 is preferred by the Employees' Union, seeking DA on par with the DA that are payable and paid at other industrial establishments at Worli and Mumbai, not only upto 30.11.2003, but for subsequent period till continuance in service and are superannuated.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:7571 WP No. 39464 of 2018 C/W WP No. 22896 of 2019
3. The parties herein are referred to as per their ranking in W.P.No.39464/2018 for the sake of convenience.
4. Petitioner is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its corporate office at Worli, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as "the Management" for the sake of convenience) and the respondent is the Employees' Union (hereinafter referred to as "the Union" for short) espousing the cause of the workmen who were employed at Bangalore Factory.
5. The Management employed around 256 workmen, 81 management staff at Bangalore Factory, the production activities of the petitioner at Bangalore factory stopped completely. All the employees working at Bangalore factory opted for voluntary retirement ("VR") under the Special Scheme and they were relieved after extending all the benefits under the VR Scheme. The respondent - Union raised a dispute demanding the difference in DA paid on par with units situated at Worli -5- NC: 2024:KHC:7571 WP No. 39464 of 2018 C/W WP No. 22896 of 2019 and Thane, after having accepted the VR scheme, the demand raised was referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication.
6. The union filed claim statement and the management filed objections to the claim statement, inter alia, contending that, pursuant to the settlement, the DA was fixed as per Bangalore cost of living and as per the clause of settlement, the same was binding for a period of 3 years 6 months upto 31.10.2003 and continued to be binding on the parties, till it is replaced by another settlement. The settlement reached its full and final settlement of all the demands raised by the union.
7. In order to substantiate their claim, Union examined one Ravindranath as W.W.1 and got marked documents at Exs.W.1 to W.106. On the other hand, the Senior General Manager was examined as M.W.1 on behalf of the management and got marked documents at Exs.M.1 to M.11.
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:7571 WP No. 39464 of 2018 C/W WP No. 22896 of 2019
8. The Tribunal by the impugned award, allowed the claim statement and granted DA to 256 employees on par with DA paid to the workmen working in Worli and Thane factory at Mumbai.
9. Heard learned counsel Sri C.K.Subrahmanya appearing for Sri B.C.Prabhakar, learned counsel for the Management and Sri K.Muralidhar Peshwa, learned counsel for the respondent-Union.
10. Learned counsel Sri C.K. Subrahmanya would urge the following grounds:
(i) That the Tribunal has committed a grave error in awarding DA amount to the employees of the Bangalore factory, ignoring the fact that the settlement was signed by the petitioner-management with the Union in respect of the Bangalore factory and the settlement was in operation till VR scheme was floated.-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:7571 WP No. 39464 of 2018 C/W WP No. 22896 of 2019
(ii) That the parties are bound by settlement entered and cannot seek to award DA on the cost of living index applicable to the Mumbai region.
(iii) The settlement entered in the year 2001 is arrived in complete satisfaction of the union's demand in the letter dated 29.04.2000 considering the Bangalore cost of living index based on All India Consumer Price Index.
(iv) That under the VR Scheme, the workmen have received all the benefits and the jural relationship of the employer and the workmen, had ceased and the parties were governed by the settlement dated 15.06.2001 granting DA.
(v) That the DA fixation is as per the cost of living index of the said locality and awarding DA of one factory to another, will create chaos because they are always depending upon the cost of living in the States and the cities throughout.
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:7571 WP No. 39464 of 2018 C/W WP No. 22896 of 2019
11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following decisions:
i. Bank of India and Ors Vs. O.P. Swaranakar and Ors.1 (O.P. Swaranakar) ii. A.K. Bindal and Anr. Vs. Union of India(UOI) and Ors.2 (A.K. Bindal)) iii. HEC Voluntary Retd. Emps. Welfare Soc.
and Ors. Vs. Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd and Ors.3 (HEC Voluntary Retd. Emps. Welfare)
12. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Union, would contend that the award of the Tribunal directing to pay DA on par with the workmen at Worli and Mumbai only till 30.11.2003 is justified and that the workmen are not only entitled for DA till the said date but have entitled till their continuance or superannuation. Learned counsel would contend that the closure of the 1 AIR 2003 SC 858 2 (2003) II LLJ 1078 SC 3 AIR 2006 SC 1420 -9- NC: 2024:KHC:7571 WP No. 39464 of 2018 C/W WP No. 22896 of 2019 company is in contravention for Section 2(5) of the Act and the Tribunal ought to have taken this fact and granted on parity DA, till the retire or superannuate.
13. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has placed reliance on the following decisions:
i. Associated Power Company V. Its Workmen4. (Its Workmen) ii. Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd V. State of
Madras and Others5. (Sree Meenakshi Mills) iii. Gulam Mohd. Gulam Mustafa Salod V. Union of India and Ors.6 (Gulam Mohd. Gulam Mustafa Salod) iv. Workmen Through Hindustan Lever Mazdoor Sabha V. Hindustan Lever Ltd7. (Hindustan Lever Ltd).
v. National Textile Corporation, U.P. (Ltd), Kanpur v. State of U.P. and Ors8. (National Textile Corporation) 4 1964-I-LLJ-754 (SC) 5 1951-II-LLJ-194 6 1994-III-LLJ-810 7 2008-III-LLJ-360(SC)(Para 6)
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7571
WP No. 39464 of 2018
C/W WP No. 22896 of 2019
vi. Indian Bank Officers'
Association(Tamilnadu and Puduchery), Chennai v. Indian Bank, Chennai & Another9. (Indian Bank Officers) vii. Nar Singh Pal v. Union of India and Others10. (Nar Singh Pal) viii. Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan and Others11. (Syed Yakoob) ix. Tata Cellular v. Union of India12. (Tata Cellular) x. Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Mazdoor Sabha13. (Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd) xi. Parry & Co. Ltd. v. P.C. Pal14. (Parry & Co. Ltd) 8 (2005-IV-LLJ(Suppl)(NOC-490)-1040 9 2001-II-LLJ-541(Mad)(Para 5(3)) 10 2000-I-LLJ-1388(SC)(Para 13) 11 AIR 1964 SC 477(Para 7 and Para 8) 12 AIR 1996 SC 11(Paras 90,93 & 94) 13 1980-I-LLJ-137(Paras 73, 74) 14 AIR 1954 SC 440(Para 11)
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7571 WP No. 39464 of 2018 C/W WP No. 22896 of 2019
14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the points that arise for consideration are:
(i) Whether in light of the settlement entered under Section 12(3) read with 18(3) of the ID Act, 1947, between the petitioner and the respondent - union, the employees of the respondent-union were justified in raising a dispute on the ground of discrimination and equal pay for equal work without examining the totality and identity of the work?
(ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in granting DA calculated in factory at Worli and Thane without considering that the respondent
- union employees had opted for VR scheme long back in the year 2003 and whether they would have been entitled on par with the other employees at different establishments?
(iii) Whether the employees are entitled to the dearness allowance in par with the employees of Worli and Thane, when the employees have entered into a memorandum of settlement and as per Clause Nos.5.1 and 5.2 and the employees having opted for voluntary
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7571 WP No. 39464 of 2018 C/W WP No. 22896 of 2019 retirement under the Special Scheme thereafter?
15. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- union would submit that 203 workmen had raised dispute before the Labour Court on similar prayer, which was rejected by the Labour Court by its award dated 20.05.2010, aggrieved by the rejection, the workmen challenged in W.P. Nos.37528-37730/2010 before this Court and would submit that the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court after hearing the parties, set aside the order of the Labour Court and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Learned counsel appearing for the management would submit that the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos.37528-37730/2010, the management has preferred W.A. No. 4859/2017 and Writ appeals of the concerned workmen are also filed in W.A. Nos.5207-5409/2017 and the Division Bench of this Court granted the stay of the order of the learned Single Judge. In the said circumstances, there is no impediment to this Court to consider the present writ petitions on merits
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7571 WP No. 39464 of 2018 C/W WP No. 22896 of 2019
16. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record.
17. The Government of Karnataka referred the dispute by raising the points of dispute as under
"CqÀ½vÀ ªÀUÀðzÀªÀgÁzÀ ªÉÄ: UÁèPÉÆì ¹ävïPÉèöÊ£ï ¥sÁgÁä¸ÀÆånPÀ¯ïì °«ÄmÉqï, ¦.©.£ÀA.1604, zÉêÀ£ÀºÀ½î gÀ¸ÉÛ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-36 EªÀgÀ PÁ«ÄðPÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV UÁèPÉÆì ¹ävïPÉèöÊ£ï ¥sÁgÁä¸ÀÆånPÀ¯ïì JA¥Áè¬Äøï AiÀÄƤAiÀÄ£ï, £ÀA.488, 1£Éà ªÀĺÀr, 6£Éà PÁæ¸ï, PÀĪÉA¥ÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ, gÁªÀĪÀÄÆwð£ÀUÀgÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-16, EªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 30.11.2003 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀéAiÀÄA ¤ªÀÈwÛ AiÉÆÃd£É M¦àPÉÆAqÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ PÁSÁð£ÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄA¨ÉÊAiÀÄ ªÉÇjè ªÀÄvÀÄÛ oÁuÉ WÀlPÀzÀ°è ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÀÝ vÀÄnÖ¨sÀvÉåAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀéAiÀÄA ¤ªÀÈwÛ AiÉÆÃd£É C£ÀéAiÀÄ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ 256 d£À PÁ«ÄðPÀgÀÄ ªÀĺÁgÁµÀÖçzÀ ªÉÇjèAiÀÄ PÀA¥À¤ vÀÄnÖ¨sÀvÉåAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄUÀÆ ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ¨ÉÃrPÉ JwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ £ÁåAiÀĸÀªÀÄävÀªÉà ?"
18. The Settlement arrived by the petitioner- management and respondent-union as per clauses 5.1, 5.2, 15.0 to 15.5, which reads as under:
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7571 WP No. 39464 of 2018 C/W WP No. 22896 of 2019 "5.1 Fixed COLA The irreducible Fixed COLA will be revised after merging the variable COLA corresponding to AICPI 2146 into the Fixed Cola and adding an adhoc increase of Rs.50.00. The revised Fixed COLA is as under:
For service less than 10 years : Rs.3955.00 Completed 10 years of service : Rs.4191.50 5.2 Variable COLA The rate of neutralisation per point rise or fall in AICPI over 2146 points will be at Rs.2.50 per point if service is less than 10 years and Rs.2.75 per point of completed 10 years of service. A workman completing 10 years of service during a month will be eligible for the corresponding COLA from the first day of the month in which he completes 10 years of service. The procedure for computation of COLA will continue as hitherto.
15.0 General:
15.1 These terms are in full and final settlement of the Charter of Demands raised by the Union in their letter dated April 29, 2000 and also the demands raised during the negotiations of the Charter of Demands and it is agreed that all demands not expressly dealt with in the settlement are deemed to be dropped and not pressed.
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7571 WP No. 39464 of 2018 C/W WP No. 22896 of 2019 Existing terms which are not expressly modified in this settlement will continue to be applicable as hitherto.
15.2 The monetary benefits under this settlement will be subject to the workmen adhering to the productivity norms, flexibility in working as per Annexures I to IV as well as implementing the improved productivity measures agreed to by the Union. The package of benefits under this settlement has been agreed to on a one time basis on the assurance of the Union and the employees to abide by these productivity norms, and the agreed package will not be quoted as a precedence for future settlements. The payment of arrears and revision of salaries will be effected along with the salary for June 2001.
15.3 All the terms contained in Annexures I to Annexure IV are agreed and form part of this settlement.
15.4 It is agreed by the Company that at the request of the Union, an amount equal to the enhancement in the monthly salary under this settlement in respect of each beneficiary under the settlement will be deducted from the arrears payable and remitted to the SB Pharmaceuticals Employees' Union.
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7571 WP No. 39464 of 2018 C/W WP No. 22896 of 2019 15.5 The Union and the employees further agree that they will not raise or open or reopen any demands / claims directly or indirectly relevant to any one of the points covered under this Settlement or related or relevant thereto, any demands / claims either raised in the issues of the Charter of Demands or during the course of negotiations and also that they will not raise any fresh demands or claims either individually or by themselves or through the Union or through any other forum, directly or indirectly involving any financial commitment to the Company or resulting in change of established procedures / practices during the currency of the settlement."
19. The memorandum of settlement was signed between the Management and the Union in the year 2001 before the employees opted for voluntary retirement and as per the settlement revision of wages, DA pertaining to the factory at Bangalore was settled and the duration of settlement was for a period of three years six months. The settlement was signed under Section 12(3) read with 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, Rule 59 of the Karnataka Industrial (Dispute) Rule, 1959 on 15.06.2001
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7571 WP No. 39464 of 2018 C/W WP No. 22896 of 2019 fixing the dearness allowance and variable dearness allowance, as per the cost of living index of Bangalore, Karnataka based on all India Consumer Price Index. The settlement entered was towards full and final settlement of all the demands raised by the respondent-union and after deliberate consideration and discussion with the respondent-union, the petitioner-management introduced VR scheme and the workman accepted the benefits of VR scheme and retired from the services of the company w.e.f. 31.12.2003, which is not disputed by the employees of the union. The employees of the union having opted for VR scheme and the workmen declared that the aforesaid amount received by them in full and final settlement, the operation of the Bangalore Factory ceased to exist w.e.f 31.12.2003 and after nearly six years of the employees having accepted the VR scheme under the settlement, raised a dispute demanding reference in dearness allowance to be paid at par with the union situated in Maharashtra such as Worli and Thane.
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7571 WP No. 39464 of 2018 C/W WP No. 22896 of 2019
20. The Labour Court arrived at a conclusion that the workmen employed at Bangalore factory to be paid difference in dearness allowance w.e.f. 01.01.2001 on par with the dearness allowance paid to the workmen employed at Mumbai Thane factory. The Tribunal totally lost sight of the fact that the settlement entered into between the Bangalore Factory and Mumbai are depending upon various inflationary factors of that region and the parties knowing fully well have entered into a settlement, which is as per the Union's demand vide letter dated 29.04.2000 and thus the Tribunal, without considering all these aspects, could not have awarded dearness allowance on par with Mumbai cost of living index to the workmen of Bangalore factory.
21. The Apex Court, in the case of O.P. Swaranakar stated supra, held that the provision of Contract Act would be applicable both on the formulation of the contract and also the determination thereof. By reason of such a scheme only an invitation of offer is
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7571 WP No. 39464 of 2018 C/W WP No. 22896 of 2019 floated and pursuant to and in furtherance of such VR Scheme an employee opts, he makes an offer which upon acceptance by the employer give raise to a contract.
22. The Apex Court in the case of A.K. Bindal stated supra has held at paragraph No.34 as under:
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 why in business world it is known as 'Golden Handshake'. The main purpose of paying this amount is to bring about a compete 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
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7571 WP No. 39464 of 2018 C/W WP No. 22896 of 2019 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.
23. The Apex Court held that if the employee opts for voluntary retirement under the scheme and his option is accepted and he is paid amount in lieu of the employee leaving the services of the company by foregoing all his claims or rights and held that, it is a package deal to give and take and that is why in the business world, it is known as a 'golden handshake'. The Apex Court emphasized that after the amount is paid and received by the employee, the employees cease to be in employment of the company or the undertaking, he leaves with all his rights and there is no question of again agitating any kind of past rights.
24. The Apex Court, in the case of Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Ex-employees
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7571 WP No. 39464 of 2018 C/W WP No. 22896 of 2019 Association and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.15, held that the employees who have secured or were terminated or dismissed from service would not claim parity or were not entitled to benefit of revision. The Apex Court at Para No.38 has held as under
38. 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 emphasized in A.K. Bindal v. Union of India(AIR 2003 SC 2189)(supra):
"The Voluntary Retirement Scheme(VRS) which is sometimes called Voluntary Separation Scheme(VSS) is introduced by companies and industrial 15 AIR 2023 SC 792
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7571 WP No. 39464 of 2018 C/W WP No. 22896 of 2019 establishments in order to reduce the surplus staff and to bring in financial efficiency. The office memorandum dated 05.05.2000 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 01.01.1992 and therefore it has provided adequate compensation in that regard in the second VRS which was announced for all Central public sector undertakings on 06.11.2001. Clause(a) of the Scheme reads as under:
(a) Ex gratia payment in respect of employees on pay scales at 01.01.1987 and 01.01.1992 levels, computed on their existing pay scales in accordance with the extant Scheme, shall be increased by 100% and 50% respectively.
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
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7571 WP No. 39464 of 2018 C/W WP No. 22896 of 2019 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 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."
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7571 WP No. 39464 of 2018 C/W WP No. 22896 of 2019
25. From the decisions stated supra and looking into the facts of the instant case, the reasoning of the Tribunal warrants interference for the following reasons:
i. That the settlement between the petitioner and the union was as per Sections 12 (3) and 18 (3) of the ID Act which was signed before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour and the said settlement has binding force;
ii. That the workmen have accepted the retirement benefits under VR Scheme and declared that the compensation package received by them is full and final settlement of all their claim against the company;
iii. After nearly six years from the date of accepting the benefit under the VR Scheme, the claim of dearness allowance on par with the dearness allowance of the employees employed in the Mumbai factory, when they are governed by settlement dated 15.06.2001 is not justified.
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7571 WP No. 39464 of 2018 C/W WP No. 22896 of 2019 iv. That the settlement having signed and VR Scheme having accepted, the relationship of the employer and the workmen ceased, as they are governed by the settlement dated 15.06.2001.
26. The reliance placed on the decisions by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, this Court has absolutely no quarrel to the proposition of law laid down in the said decisions, however, it is distinguishable for the following reasons:
i. In Its Workmen, it was a case where the agreement was dated 17.05.1961 and the workman raised reference immediately on 23.07.1961, inter alia, claiming DA, the Apex Court in the said decision, made it clear that the award should not be applicable to the 8 persons who have retired between December 1961 and August 1963.
The said decision is distinguishable for the following reason:
a. In the instant case, the dispute was raised after nearly six years, after the jural relationship of the employer and the employee came to an end by way of
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7571 WP No. 39464 of 2018 C/W WP No. 22896 of 2019 availing all the voluntary retirement benefits and the jurisdiction of the tribunal was unabled.
b. In the case of Gulam Mohd. Gulam Mustfa Salod, the Apex Court held that the jural relationship of an employer and employee comes to an end after voluntarily retiring from service and the person who opts voluntary retirement is not a workman. The Apex Court also held that the special scheme of voluntary retirement becomes an concluded contract and hence the same cannot be re-opened.
27. In the case of Nar Singh pal, the said decision cannot be pressed into service, since it is a termination of temporary workman without enquiry and it is a settled proposition of law, that just by accepting the retrenchment compensation, the right of the workman to challenge the order cannot be deprived, in the instant case, it is not the case of termination of temporary worker, but an accepting of VR benefits under the special scheme floated by the
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7571 WP No. 39464 of 2018 C/W WP No. 22896 of 2019 company and the said decision is distinguishable and not applicable to the present facts.
For the foregoing reasons, the points raised for consideration are answered in favour of the petitioner- management and the writ petition filed by the respondent- union is to be dismissed and accordingly, this Court pass the following:
ORDER
(i) WP No.39464/2018 is hereby allowed.
(ii) WP No.22896/2019 filed by the employees-union is hereby dismissed.
(iii) The impugned order passed by the industrial Tribunal is hereby set aside.
Sd/-
JUDGE RAK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17