Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.39 seconds)
Documents citing Eid Parry (India) Ltd vs M.N.Padmanabhan on 26 June, 2008

Union Of India vs D.S.M.Agastus Babu on 31 January, 2022

Likewise, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of E.I.D. Parry Vs. M.N.Padmanabhan and another reported in 2008 (3) CTC 746 had held that in view of the voluntary retirement, the claimants ceased 7/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.21400 of 2015 to be a workmen and therefore, cannot raise a claim. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - M S Ramesh - Full Document

Khem Chand vs M/S. Bhartia Cuttler Hammer And Another on 6 March, 2014

Similarly, the judgment in EID Parry (India) Ltd.'s case (supra), of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court would not be applicable since the dispute in the said case was that the Single Judge had directed that a reference should be made under Section 2-A of the Act since the Government had refused to refer the matter. The Division Bench allowed the appeal of management on the ground that the workman had not explained the circumstances under which he was coerced to opt for the scheme and the circumstances would go against him. Again, it was not a case where the matter was already referred by the Government to the Labour Gupta Shivani 2014.03.21 13:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 18216 of 2011 16 Court, which has to adjudicate and decide the issue on merits.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - G S Sandhawalia - Full Document

M.Venkatesan vs The Chairman on 16 September, 2008

11.Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court a copy of the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.Satyanarayana Reddy and Others v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur, and Others, 2008 (5) Supreme Court Cases 280, wherein, the matter was referred to a Larger Bench, in view of the decision in A.K.Bindal v. Union of India, 2003 (5) SCC 163, which we followed in our decision in EID Parry (India) Ltd. v. M.N.Padmanabhan, 2008 (3) CTC 746, holding that once an employee opts to retire under VRS and accepts the benefits thereunder, his rights come to an end and the contra decision in National Buildings Construction Corporation v. Pritam Singh Gill, 1972 (2) SCC 1, with which we are conscious. However, our decision in the earlier case applies to the facts of this case. Accordingly, we hold that the petitioner cannot raise the issue in question and agitate the same, as his right as an employee comes to an end and he cannot be treated on par with the employees, who retire in the normal course. The voluntary retirement for the employees of Export Inspection Council/Export Inspection Agencies, which was a scheme opted by the petitioner in the year 1994, was a one-time special offer, under which an optee was entitled for full commutation of pension (100%), exgratia payment of 1 = months salary for each completed year of service and other benefits. Admittedly, the petitioner did not seek voluntary retirement under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules as applicable to the employees of the Council/Agency, but opted for voluntary retirement under a scheme, which was a special one-time package, offered for a specific period as a golden handshake, which contained more attractive and lucrative terms of payments. Once the petitioner has agreed unconditionally to avail the benefits under the special one-time voluntary retirement scheme, he cannot claim other benefits available under the normal scheme, which are not mentioned in the Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - V Dhanapalan - Full Document
1