IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2008 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1930 OP.No. 5931 of 2000(F) ---------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. T.O. KUNJUVARIED, S/O. T.K. OUSEPH, THEKKAN HOUSE, SHAH ROAD, CHALAKUDY-680 307. 2. R.MANOKARAN, MALIYIL BUILDING, BYD-PASS ROAD, ALUVA – 683 101. 3. N.I. JOHNI,NALAMVELIL HOUSE, SYRIAN CHURCH ROAD, ALUVA 683 101. BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.WILSON URMESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHALAKKUDI REFRACTORIES LTD., CHALAKKUDY, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA. SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: O.P.NO. 5931/2000. --------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF EXTRACT OF COMMUNICATION DT. 6-12-1995. EXT.P2 GOVT. ORDER DT. 23-3-1996. EXT.P3 PROCEEDINGS DT. 4-11-1996. EXT.P4 PROCEEDINGS DT. 7-8-1998. EXT.P5 REPRESENTATION DT. 2-11-1998. EXT.P6 GOVT ORDER DT. 30-7-1999. EXT.P7 REPRESENTATION DT. 22-9-1999. EXT.P8 ORDER DT. 1-2-2000. EXT.P9 COMMUNICATION DT. 23-1-1999. EXT.P10 COMMUNICATION DT. 16-3-1999. EXT.P11 LETTER DT. 6-6-2001. EXT.P12 LETTER DT. 1-10-2001. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 5931 of 2000 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 30th October, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioners were working as executives of the 3rd respondent -Company. That Company was incorporated in 1969. The 1st petitioner joined the Company on 6-1-1976, the 2nd petitioner in June, 1981 and the 3rd petitioner on 12-9-1980. They had put in 24 years, 18 years and 18 years of service respectively in the Company when they were allowed to retire voluntarily on specific terms and conditions. Earlier, because the Company was constantly running at a loss, it was decided to lay off the employees of the Company. Permission for the same was granted on 22-10-1994. Lay off was declared on 12-11-1994. Thereafter, a tri-partite settlement among the Government, management of the Company and the unions was entered into by which all the employees except the executives were offered a scheme for voluntary retirement. The method of calculation of the compensation for such voluntary retirement was also specified in Ext. P1. Out of the executives, except the petitioners, the others had left the company. The petitioners were retained, so that they may be absorbed in some other public sector undertaking, till liquidation proceedings are completed. Nothing worked out. Ultimately, pursuant to representations submitted by the petitioners, the Company wrote to the Government by Ext. P4 letter dated 7-8-1998 for sanction of a proposal to allow them to give option for voluntary retirement on payment of compensation referred to therein. The Government by Ext. P6, allowed the Company to offer voluntary retirement to the petitioners on the terms mentioned in Ext. P6. The terms were not acceptable to the petitioners. They filed representations before the Government which were also ultimately rejected by Ext. P8 order. However, later they retired voluntarily accepting the terms under protest. It is under the above O.P.No. 5931/2000 -: 2 :- circumstances, the petitioners have filed this original petition seeking the following reliefs: “(a) To issue a writ of certiorari quashing Exhibit P8; (b) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the 3rd respondent to pay the salary of the petitioners, till their services are terminated. (c) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to pay the provident fund contribution payable to the petitioners till date; (d) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to pay the VRS compensation taking into consideration the last drawn pay viz: till the date the petitioners are relieved from service and also by reckoning the 30 days wages multiplied by 3.46; (3) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to pay all monetary benefits due to the petitioners pending disposal of the original petition.” 2. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a counter affidavit refuting the contentions of the petitioners 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. I find that there was no compulsion from either the Government or the Company on the petitioners to accept the package offered to them by Ext. P6. They could either accept the same and retire voluntarily or refuse to accept the same and continue in service taking the risk attached thereto. Of course, although under protest they have chosen to ultimately accept the package offered to them, in so far as it was a package offered to them, they cannot take the stand that they will accept the package only subject to certain conditions. Therefore, having accepted the package, although under protest, I do not think that the petitioners can now claim other benefits as well in addition to the amounts which they have already received. In fact, the Supreme Court has held that as far as VRS compensation is O.P.No. 5931/2000 -: 3 :- concerned, it is a package and after accepting the same and retiring, the employees cannot then seek payment of some other amounts also. In the above circumstances I do not find any merit in the original petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/