.{1}. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.103 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.7006 OF 2007 Krishna D. Ipte and 11 others. ..Appellants. Versus M/s. Bayer India Ltd.. ..Respondent. ... Mr.M.V.Limaye, Advocate a/w. Mahendra Agarekar, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.R.N.Salgaonkar, Advocate i/b. M/s.Salgaonkar & Co. for the respondent. ... CORAM : J.N. PATEL AND CORAM : J.N. PATEL AND CORAM : J.N. PATEL AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATED : 12TH FEBRUARY, 2009. DATED : 12TH FEBRUARY, 2009. DATED : 12TH FEBRUARY, 2009. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the appellants - orig. petitioners and the learned Advocate for the respondent - orig.respondent. 2. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge upholding the order of the Industrial Court dismissing the complaint on merits as well as on the point of delay. .{2}. 3. The appellants had filed a complaint alleging unfair labour practice under Items 5, 9 & 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. The case of the appellants is that the respondent employer had introduced voluntary retirement scheme on or about 2nd March, 1995. The said Scheme was again displayed on 23.2.1995. The appellants had applied for the benefits of the said scheme on 23.3.1995 and the applications were accepted w.e.f. 1st April, 1995. It is an admitted fact that the appellants were paid all the benefits under the said Scheme. However, some time in the month of February, 1999, they came to know that in the posts they were holding, some other employees were recruited and, therefore, the employer was guilty of unfair labour practice on this ground and other grounds. 4. The respondent contended that as the appellants have taken the benefits under the VRS long back, there does not exist any relationship of employer and employee. According to the respondent company, the appellants i.e. original complainants ceased to be in the employment of the company from the closing hours of 30.3.1995. The Industrial Court held that .{3}. there was no relationship of employer and employee between the parties and moreover there was inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the complaint and the complaint came to be dismissed. 5. The learned Single Judge has confirmed the order of Industrial Court. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal. 6. In our opinion the appellants cannot claim any subsisting right after they received the benefits under the VRS. They cannot claim that their relationship continues to subsist for years to come and they would have a locus to file a complaint, if in case, in future, some cause accrues. The relationship as is envisaged by Section 29(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be a relationship in perpetuity. If some dispute is referable to dismissal, discharge or retrenchment etc. the same could be brought before the Court but the same would require a time nexus. In our opinion the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the appellants after having received all benefits cannot now challenge the same by claiming existence of .{4}. relationship of employee and employer. 7. The terms and conditions of VRS-95 did not indicate any element of coercion or force and it was left to the choice of the employees either to respond to the same or not to apply for it. The appellants had opted for the VRS 1995 & accepted all legal dues without any protest. They have not raised any grievance at the relevant time, thus all of them ceased to be employees of respondent company on 30.3.1995. Once an employee opts for VRS, which has been consented and agreed between the parties then thereafter no employer employee relationship exists between them. Merely stating that after appellants had received the benefits under the VRS-95 they came to know in February, 1999 that some other employees were recruited in their place, cannot be any basis to state that there is unfair labour practice under Items 5, 9 or 10 of Schedule IV of the Act. Here is a case where the complainants collected the benefits of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme on their own volition and after four years approached the Industrial Court with a complaint of unfair labour practice on utterly frivolous grounds. .{5}. 8. As far as the condonation of delay is concerned, it is seen that the appellants took VRS in 1995. However, the complaint came to be filed in the year 1999 in respect of benefits obtained by them in the year 1995. The appellants have opted for VRS 1995 and got the monetary benefits therefrom and they have not raised any grievance about the same at the relevant time. They raised the grievance for the first time after four long years. No sufficient reason has been stated by the complainants in the delay condonation application. There is a delay of four years and no cogent reason in respect of delay has been given by the appellants. In such case, it cannot be said that the delay has been satisfactorily explained. The delay, as stated earlier, is inordinate. Even otherwise, on merits also the matter does not call for any interference. Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. [J.N.PATEL,J.] [J.N.PATEL,J.] [J.N.PATEL,J.] .{6}. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]