Letters Patent Appeal No.93 of 2011 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Letters Patent Appeal No.93 of 2011 Date of decision: 11.5.2011 Central Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh ...Appellant Versus The Presiding Officer and another ...Respondents and other connected appeal being Letters Patent Appeal No.94 of 2011. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. K.K.Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Madan Mohan, Advocate for respondent no.2. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACJ. 1. This order will dispose of Letters Patent Appeals No.93 and 94 of 2011 as it is stated that both the appeals involve common question. 2. Letters Patent Appeal No.93 of 2011 has been preferred against the order of learned Single Judge dated 9.12.2010 upholding the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in favour of the workman. 3. The workman was employed with the appellant-management. He worked from 28.2.1983 to 15.11.1984 as temporary employee and thereafter as regular employee from 16.11.1984 onwards. Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) having been introduced for employees who have rendered more than ten years of service, the workman opted for the Letters Patent Appeal No.93 of 2011 -2- **** said scheme and retired from service on 18.8.2002. The scheme contemplated giving of salary calculated with reference to years of service put in. While giving the said benefits, the period of service from 28.2.1983 to 15.11.1984 was ignored even though gratuity was paid for the said period. The workman raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication. Management opposed the claim by stating that period prior to regularisation into service could not be counted as part of service. The Labour Court upheld the plea of the workman as follows:- “Every workman was initially appointed for three months by the appointment letter. Appointment letter in ID No.65/2009 Shri Bhagwan Singh Versus Central Warehousing Corporation is on record. The appointment letter M2 shows that initial appointment was for three months on contract basis in the pay scale of Rs.196-3-220-8-232. On expiry of three months period every workman continued to work and their services were regularised on 15.4.1984. Every workman has continuously worked with the management and there has been no break in the services on their initial appointment and the regularisation of services. When any document is subject to the construction, any clause, phrases or words used in the document should not be constructed in isolation. The meaning of words, phrases or the sentence has to be gathered from the entire text of the document. The term contractual 'chowkidar' written in the document M2 cannot be constructed in isolation. It has to be construed on the basis of the entire text of the document. The intention of the legislature in M2 is also the paramount consideration. On perusal of the M2 and the Letters Patent Appeal No.93 of 2011 -3- **** evidence on record, it is clear that workmen were appointed for a fixed period of three months on the same pay scale which was was applicable to the regular employees. Wages were paid by the department and not by any contracting agency. Both of the workmen were under the administrative control of the management and not of any agency. Both of the workmen had worked continuously till the date of regularisation and their services were regularised by the management as per the rules. The special voluntary retirement scheme under which every workmen has opted for the voluntary retirement is on record. It is specifically mentioned in the scheme that in respect of computation of the services the computationist who were absorbed in Central Warehousing Corporation, the period of services rendered on deputation if any, shall not be treated as part of the services for the purpose of this scheme. Thus, the scheme only barred the services rendered on deputation for commutation. Services rendered otherwise can be subject to the commutation. As stated earlier, both of the workmen were paid wages directly by the management and they were under the administrative control of the management. Non computation of the services rendered by them prior to the date of regularisation is illegal.” 4. The view taken by the Labour Court has been upheld by the learned Single Judge of this Court as follows:- “The labour Court has considered this issue in the light of retirement scheme. It is noticed that in the scheme, it is specially mentioned that for computation of the services of the Letters Patent Appeal No.93 of 2011 -4- **** computationist, who are absorbed in the Central Warehousing Corporation, the period of service rendered on deputation if any would not be counted as part of the services for the purposes of this scheme. All other services as per the scheme, were required to be so computed. Taking this to be a scheme of VRS, the respondent/workman has been held entitled to VRS for the period for which he had directly received wages from the management. This approach of the Labour Court apparent is fair and just. If there was any intention on the part of the petitioner to deny the benefit of period of service rendered on contract basis for denying VRS it was required to specifically so provided in the scheme as such. The approach adopted by the Labour Court is justifed and would not call for any interference. An employee working on contractual basis may not be entitled to VRS but once he is taken on regular employment then his total service with the petitioner can be relevant for VRS if on contract or otherwise as he was paid for the said service. Counsel for the petitioner next makes a grievance that labour Court was not justified in allowing the interest and that too at the rate of 10% per annum. Counsel would submit that any payment prior to the date of demand notice could not have been allowed. Present one is a case where entitlement was not in dispute. The dispute only related to the period of service rendered by respondent No.2 while he had served on a contractual basis. Once he was held entitled to VRS for this period, his right to claim this amount from the date it was due Letters Patent Appeal No.93 of 2011 -5- **** would stand recognized. That being the position, it cannot be said that he was entitled to receive this amount on the date of voluntary retirement and this amount was withheld by the petitioner for all these years for any reason whatsoever. Accordingly, respondent no.2 would be entitled to have interest on this amount which was withheld from the date it was due to the date of the payment. The Labour Court, thus, is justified in allowing his claim. No case of interference in the award is made out. There is no merit in the writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. 5. We have learned counsel for the appellant and perused the VRS and the impugned orders. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the scheme envisages benefit for completed years of service which cannot refer to temporary service. He has also relied upon clarification issued to the effect that the VRS benefit was not available to contract employees. 7. We are unable to accept this submission. 8. The question is not of eligibility as it remains undisputed that the workman in question was eligible for VRS. Question is only of computation of benefits. The Labour Court as well as learned Single Judge held that the entire service had to be covered for computation of benefits in terms of the scheme itself. Relevant part of the scheme is reproduced below:- “ ENTITLEMENT/BENEFITS UNDER THE SCHEME An employee, whose offer for voluntary retirement under the scheme is accepted, will be entitled to the following benefits. Letters Patent Appeal No.93 of 2011 -6- **** 1) The ex-gratia payment equivalent to 60 days salary for each completed year of service in the Corporation or the salary for the left out period of service whichever is less. Salary for the purpose of SVRS-2002 shall consist of basic pay plus DA as on the date of relief and no other element.” 9. Reference to above shows a temporary service followed by regular service is not excluded from consideration for calculation of benefits of VRS. As noticed in the impugned order, for gratuity entire service has been counted. There is no reason to exclude any part of service for computation of benefits of VRS in absence of any particular provision to that effect. 10. In view of above, no ground to interfere with the impugned order is made out. The appeals are dismissed. 11. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the connected case. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Acting Chief Justice May 11, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Pka Judge