13W tmO MoPg an Dio, Maging rectr Bhi Stee lant Bhilai, Sl tty of Ida mit, tee Auhori ni Lied st . VERéUS .oo to. c 1 Sm ata i, hri urara, s , hua eI, 1 Pn u y rad. /1992 PITGNR ETIE RONES ESPDNT ila l P. Dit. Durg . t. Bsan Ba W/o S Kbha Qr‘.§§o. 18—D, - t .No. 51 Krsipra,, Zon-I Bhilai - 490 01,, residig Officer, Labor Ccurt, Bilaspur, Maaha Pesh PETiTIoN UNDERARTICLE, 226 OF THE ggwsmlT'UTxom GE INDIA. 7 \ HIG R H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU Wri Petitioner M t Petition No. 2391 of 1992 Managing Director, Steel Authority of India Limited, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Distt. Durg Versus Smt. Basanta Bai 85 another Respondents Post for Judgment 8n Order on this 8#day of October, 5d): , Satish K. Agnihotri Judge J 7 . 0.2009 2009. R k“ 1, x— 1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR W.P. No. 2391 of 1992 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Gautam Bhaduri, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent No. 1. JUDGMENT an ORDER (Passed on this &“day of October, 2009) 1. The petitioner, by this petition seeks to challenge the validity and legality of the order dated 1.4.1992 (Annexure P/ 1), passed by the Labour Court, Bilaspur in Case N0. 29/I.D.A./89 (Basanta Bai Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. Bhilai).' 2. The brief facts in nutshell are that the respondent No.1 (Smt. Narmada Bai) was appointed in the petitioner organization on 16.6.1978 as Piece Rated Mazdoor. On 28.10.1987 (Annexure P/3) the respohdent No.1 made an application for voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme N0. 9/82 (Annexure P/4—A) (in short, “Scheme No. 9/82”). This Scheme No. 9/82 was extended from time to time by various circulars and lastly it was extended Vide circular' dated 14.5.1988 (Annexure P/4-G). The application of the respondent No.1 was accepted in accordance with the Scheme No. 9/82 and she was relieved on 1.1.1988. On the date of voluntary retirement, the age of the respondent No.1 was 39 years and 7 days and the qualifying service was 9 years, 6 months and 15 days. In accordance with the Scheme No. 9/82, the respondent No.1 was Petitioner Managing Director, Steel Authority of India Limited, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Distt. Durg. Versus Respondents Smt. Basanta Bai 85 another entitled to get compensation equivalent to 15 days average wages for every completed year of service or any part thereof in excess of six months. The respondent No.1 was paid the entire amount towards C.P.F., Gratuity and SEWA. It appears that after getting the benefits of voluntary retirement in accordance with the Scheme N0. 9/82, the respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court, Bilaspur for grant of retirement compensation to the tune of Rs. 84,701 /—, in addition to the amount already accepted by her. The ground of challenge by the respondent No.1 appears to be, that at the time of her voluntary retirement, a new Voluntary Retirement Scheme was introduced vide circular No. M&R-89/96, dated 15.10.1986 (Annexure P/5), but the employer had not granted the voluntary retirement benefits to the respondent No.1 in accordance with the said scheme. Thus, the respondent No.1 was entitled to the compensation of Rs. 84,701 /—. The case of the petitioner—employer before the Labour Court was that the Scheme dated 15. 10. 1986 was not applicable in the case of the respondent No.1, as it was applicable in cases of only those employees who have completed 4O years minimum age and 10 years of qualifying service. The Labour Court by impugned order dated 1.4.1992 (Annexure P/ 1) allowed the application filed by the respondent No.1 holding that the employer on its discretion may grant retirement compensation by relaxing the Rules and as such, directed the petitioner- employer to pay a sum of Rs. 84,701.92/-. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in support of his submission placed reliance on a judgment and order dated 16m September, 2009, passed by this Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 6847 of 2006 (Sarvanand Giri Vs. The Group General Manager, Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited) and submits that once the proposal or offer of the petitioner — employer for voluntary retirement, in accordance with the Scheme No. 9/82, was accepted by the respondent No.1 by making the application dated 28.10.1987 (Annexure P/3), thereafter, the same was accepted and the required payments were made, thus, the contract was concluded. It cannot be reconsidered on the basis of a subsequent application, either to the employer or to the Labour Court for grant of benefit of some other scheme, after receiving the benefits as envisaged under a particular contractual scheme. Notice was issued to the respondents on 2.11.1992. As per the office report dated 25.6.2005 the notice was served to the respondents. On 28.6.2005 the S.P.C. was issued to the respondent No.1. In spite of the service of notice and issue of S.P.C., none appeared nor any representation was made on behalf of the respondent No.1. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the documents appended thereto. It is well settled that once an employee has accepted the retiral benefits under voluntary retirement scheme, he cannot resile from its earlier stand as observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bank of India v. O.P.Swarnakar 8r. Othersl : SCC 721 “114. However, it is accepted that a group of employees accepted the ex gratia payment. Those who accepted the ex gratia payment or any other benefit under the Scheme, in our considered opinion, could not have resiled therefrom. 115. The Scheme is contractual in nature. The contractual right derived by the employees concerned, therefore, could be waived. The employees concerned having accepted a part of the benefit could not be permitted to approbate and reprobate nor can they be permitted to resile from their earlier stand.” 10. This Court in Sarvanand Giri (supra) has held that “It is trite law that if the voluntary retirement has been sought pursuant to some Voluntary Retirement Scheme, the same shall not be governed by the provisions of law but by the terms and conditions of the Scheme.” bound by the terms of contract of voluntary retirement. We have noticed hereinbefore that unless a statute or statutory :SCC 708 \ I3. nnexure P/ 1) some other scheme. In View of the foregoing, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 1.4.1992 (A No order asto costs. sub } Satish K. Agnihotri “i is quashed and set aside. Xx Thakur Judge ‘i