(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 3206 OF 2010 Ananda Asaram Bagul, Age : 53 years, Occupation : Nil, R/o. At Post Haregaon, Taluka : Shrirampur, District : Ahmednagar. .. Petitioner. versus 1. Maharashtra State Farming Corporation Limited, 270, Bhamburda, Senapati Bapat Marg, Pune - 53, Through Managing Director. 2. Estate Manager, Maharashtra State Farming Corporation Limited, At Haregaon Mala, Taluka : Shrirampur, District : Ahmednagar. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. P.V. Barde, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.L. Kute, Advocate, holding for Mr. V.R. Dhorde, Advocate, for respondent no.1. Respondent no.2 served (Absent). ........................ (2) CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 8TH FEBRUARY 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. The contention of Adv. Barde is, the Voluntary Retirement Scheme was forcibly implemented. He points out that before the scheme was enforced, for long period wages and bonus were not paid and employees were made to believe that if they did not accept the scheme, they would lose everything. Attention has been invited to evidence adduced on record and also its consideration by the court below. 2. Mr. Kute, learned Advocate appearing for respondent no.1, on the other hand, states that the scheme was not imposed upon employees. Voluntarily they accepted it and he also relies upon judgment dated 7th November 1998, delivered by Principal Bench at Bombay, in Writ Petition Nos. 6435/1995 and 6437/1995. According to him, similar challenge was negated there and the Industrial Court has also looked into this judgment of Bombay Bench. 3. After perusal of the material as shown to this Court, it is apparent that evidence on record is not sufficient to show any (3) oblique motive on the part of the employer. The non-payment of wages or bonus is not shown to be deliberate. Similarly, it is not urged that the petitioner was victimized and a particular group or number of employees have been favoured by the respondent / employer. 4. The Industrial Court has correctly applied its mind. I do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity. 5. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp3206