: 1 : IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE SIDE SIDE SIDE WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 7043 OF 2006 PETITION NO. 7043 OF 2006 PETITION NO. 7043 OF 2006 NARAYAN NARAYAN NARAYAN S. PAGDHARE & ORS. S. PAGDHARE & ORS. S. PAGDHARE & ORS. ......... PETITIONERS. PETITIONERS. PETITIONERS. VS. VS. VS. BAJAJ BAJAJ BAJAJ AUTO LTD. & ORS. AUTO LTD. & ORS. AUTO LTD. & ORS. ......... RESPONDENTS. RESPONDENTS. RESPONDENTS. MS. GAYATRI SINGH ADV. FOR THE PETITIONER. MR. J.P.CAMA SR. ADVOCATE WITH MRS. SWATI DESHYPANDE I/B.M/S.BODHANWALLA & CO. FOR THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3. ..... ..... ..... CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE, J. : A.P.DESHPANDE, J. : A.P.DESHPANDE, J. DATE DATE DATE : February 6, 2007. : February 6, 2007. : February 6, 2007. ..... ..... ..... P.C. P.C. P.C. 1.1.1. This This This petition has been filed by three workmen, petition has been filed by three workmen, petition has been filed by three workmen, inin in a representative capacity for and on behalf of 747 a representative capacity for and on behalf of 747 a representative capacity for and on behalf of 747 employees. employees. employees. Undisputedly the employees were in the Undisputedly the employees were in the Undisputedly the employees were in the employment employment employment of the respondent and had put in quite of the respondent and had put in quite of the respondent and had put in quite numbers numbers numbers of of of years in service by the time the respondent - years in service by the time the respondent - years in service by the time the respondent - company company company announced and allowed the voluntary retirement announced and allowed the voluntary retirement announced and allowed the voluntary retirement : 2 : scheme scheme scheme (VRS). (VRS). (VRS). The VRS scheme was introduced in the year The VRS scheme was introduced in the year The VRS scheme was introduced in the year 2000, 2000, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 and, thereafter in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003 and, thereafter in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003 and, thereafter in the year 2005. 2005. 2005. The present petitioners are mainly from the The present petitioners are mainly from the The present petitioners are mainly from the workmen workmen workmen who had opted for VRS in the year 2000 to 2002. who had opted for VRS in the year 2000 to 2002. who had opted for VRS in the year 2000 to 2002. 2.2.2. ItItIt is further not in dispute that on accepting is further not in dispute that on accepting is further not in dispute that on accepting the the the VRS by the petitioners, they have received all the VRS by the petitioners, they have received all the VRS by the petitioners, they have received all the benefits benefits benefits under the VR Scheme, when they have opted for under the VR Scheme, when they have opted for under the VR Scheme, when they have opted for VRS. VRS. VRS. Sometime in the year 2005, the respondents floated Sometime in the year 2005, the respondents floated Sometime in the year 2005, the respondents floated another another another VRS and on realising that the said scheme is VRS and on realising that the said scheme is VRS and on realising that the said scheme is more more more beneficial to the workmen, the present petitioners beneficial to the workmen, the present petitioners beneficial to the workmen, the present petitioners and and and other similarly situated employees, moved the other similarly situated employees, moved the other similarly situated employees, moved the Industrial Industrial Industrial Court, Court, Court, by filing a complaint ( ULP No. 17 of by filing a complaint ( ULP No. 17 of by filing a complaint ( ULP No. 17 of 2005) 2005) 2005) by contending that the respondent-company had by contending that the respondent-company had by contending that the respondent-company had engaged engaged engaged in unfair labour practices under item 5, 9 and in unfair labour practices under item 5, 9 and in unfair labour practices under item 5, 9 and 10 10 10 of of of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. A preliminary Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. A preliminary Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. A preliminary objection objection objection was raised about maintainability of the was raised about maintainability of the was raised about maintainability of the complaint complaint complaint by by by contending that as all the petitioners have contending that as all the petitioners have contending that as all the petitioners have taken taken taken the benefits under the VRS long back, and there the benefits under the VRS long back, and there the benefits under the VRS long back, and there does does does not not not exist any relationship of employer and employee exist any relationship of employer and employee exist any relationship of employer and employee and and and thus, the present petitioners do not satisfy the thus, the present petitioners do not satisfy the thus, the present petitioners do not satisfy the test test test of "workmen" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial of "workmen" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial of "workmen" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Disputes Disputes Act. Act. Act. 3.3.3. Relying Relying Relying on various judgments of the Apex Court, on various judgments of the Apex Court, on various judgments of the Apex Court, which which which are are are referred to in the Order, the Industrial Court referred to in the Order, the Industrial Court referred to in the Order, the Industrial Court : 3 : has has has recorded a finding that the complaint, as filed is recorded a finding that the complaint, as filed is recorded a finding that the complaint, as filed is not not not maintainable in the absence of existence of relation maintainable in the absence of existence of relation maintainable in the absence of existence of relation ship ship ship of employer and employee between the parties. of employer and employee between the parties. of employer and employee between the parties. 4.4.4. The The The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has has has contended that the Industrial Court ought not have contended that the Industrial Court ought not have contended that the Industrial Court ought not have rejected rejected rejected the complaint at the threshold but ought to the complaint at the threshold but ought to the complaint at the threshold but ought to have have have permitted permitted permitted the parties to lead elaborate evidence in the parties to lead elaborate evidence in the parties to lead elaborate evidence in support support support of their case and then only ought to have of their case and then only ought to have of their case and then only ought to have adjudicated adjudicated adjudicated the issue of maintainability alongwith other the issue of maintainability alongwith other the issue of maintainability alongwith other issues. issues. issues. 5.5.5. ItItIt is next contended that an assurance was given is next contended that an assurance was given is next contended that an assurance was given by by by the Rspondent-company in a document titled as an the Rspondent-company in a document titled as an the Rspondent-company in a document titled as an Appeal Appeal Appeal made made made to the workmen to seek voluntary retirement, to the workmen to seek voluntary retirement, to the workmen to seek voluntary retirement, dated dated dated 31st October, 2002. Placing reliance on the 31st October, 2002. Placing reliance on the 31st October, 2002. Placing reliance on the statement statement statement contained in Appeal, it is submitted that the contained in Appeal, it is submitted that the contained in Appeal, it is submitted that the Petitioners Petitioners Petitioners were swayed by the said Appeal and were were swayed by the said Appeal and were were swayed by the said Appeal and were misled misled misled to accept the same. The statement reads thus :- to accept the same. The statement reads thus :- to accept the same. The statement reads thus :- "In "In "In any case the post settlement Voluntarily any case the post settlement Voluntarily any case the post settlement Voluntarily Retirement Retirement Retirement Scheme, if any, will in no way Scheme, if any, will in no way Scheme, if any, will in no way provide provide provide a higher amount than the current a higher amount than the current a higher amount than the current Scheme". Scheme". Scheme". . In In In the submission of the learned Counsel for the the submission of the learned Counsel for the the submission of the learned Counsel for the : 4 : Respondent, Respondent, Respondent, the assurance was only restricted to the the assurance was only restricted to the the assurance was only restricted to the next next next V.R.S. and cannot bind the Respondent for all time V.R.S. and cannot bind the Respondent for all time V.R.S. and cannot bind the Respondent for all time toto to come. come. come. It is pointed out that no additional benefit was It is pointed out that no additional benefit was It is pointed out that no additional benefit was extended extended extended in 2003,however, more amount is paid in the in 2003,however, more amount is paid in the in 2003,however, more amount is paid in the settlement settlement settlement of 2005. of 2005. of 2005. 6.6.6. The The The learned Counsel learned Counsel learned Counsel appearing appearing appearing for the for the for the Respondents Respondents Respondents supports the order impugned in this supports the order impugned in this supports the order impugned in this petition, petition, petition, by contending that all the petitioners have, by contending that all the petitioners have, by contending that all the petitioners have, without without without exception, received all the benefits under the exception, received all the benefits under the exception, received all the benefits under the VRS, VRS, VRS, when they accepted it and the same is in between when they accepted it and the same is in between when they accepted it and the same is in between the the the year 2000 to 2003. The terms of the VRS cannot be year 2000 to 2003. The terms of the VRS cannot be year 2000 to 2003. The terms of the VRS cannot be static static static and it was only in the year 2005, that some more and it was only in the year 2005, that some more and it was only in the year 2005, that some more favourable favourable favourable terms were provided to the workmen. It is terms were provided to the workmen. It is terms were provided to the workmen. It is emphatically emphatically emphatically pointed out that all the petitioners have pointed out that all the petitioners have pointed out that all the petitioners have received received received the benefits long back and ceased to have any the benefits long back and ceased to have any the benefits long back and ceased to have any relationship relationship relationship with with with the respondents as is envisaged by the the respondents as is envisaged by the the respondents as is envisaged by the provisions provisions provisions of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Act. Act. Belatedly, filing a complaint in the year 2005 on Belatedly, filing a complaint in the year 2005 on Belatedly, filing a complaint in the year 2005 on the the the ground that the scheme introduced in 2005 provides ground that the scheme introduced in 2005 provides ground that the scheme introduced in 2005 provides for for for better terms of VRS, is not maintainable. better terms of VRS, is not maintainable. better terms of VRS, is not maintainable. 7.7.7. The The The learned Counsel learned Counsel learned Counsel appearing appearing appearing for the for the for the Petitioners Petitioners Petitioners has also submitted that even after has also submitted that even after has also submitted that even after termination termination termination of the relationship of employer employee, a of the relationship of employer employee, a of the relationship of employer employee, a complaint complaint complaint would be maintainable, as a person would would be maintainable, as a person would would be maintainable, as a person would : 5 : continue continue continue to satisfy the test of the definition of to satisfy the test of the definition of to satisfy the test of the definition of "workmen" "workmen" "workmen" under under under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Act. Act. However, in my opinion, the employees, who opted However, in my opinion, the employees, who opted However, in my opinion, the employees, who opted for for for VRS VRS VRS and received all the benefits thereunder, cannot and received all the benefits thereunder, cannot and received all the benefits thereunder, cannot claim claim claim that their relationship continues to subsist for that their relationship continues to subsist for that their relationship continues to subsist for years years years to come and they could have a locus to file a to come and they could have a locus to file a to come and they could have a locus to file a complaint, complaint, complaint, if in case, in future, some cause accrues on if in case, in future, some cause accrues on if in case, in future, some cause accrues on account account account of grant of better benefits under some other of grant of better benefits under some other of grant of better benefits under some other scheme. scheme. scheme. The relationship as is envisaged by Section The relationship as is envisaged by Section The relationship as is envisaged by Section 2(s) 2(s) 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be a of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be a of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be a relationship relationship relationship in perpetuity. If some dispute is in perpetuity. If some dispute is in perpetuity. If some dispute is referable referable referable to dismissal, discharge or retrenchment etc., to dismissal, discharge or retrenchment etc., to dismissal, discharge or retrenchment etc., the the the same could be brought before the Court but the same same could be brought before the Court but the same same could be brought before the Court but the same would would would require a time nexus. A person who voluntarily require a time nexus. A person who voluntarily require a time nexus. A person who voluntarily retired retired retired cannot turn around and challenge the same more cannot turn around and challenge the same more cannot turn around and challenge the same more so so so after having received all the benefits under the after having received all the benefits under the after having received all the benefits under the Voluntary Voluntary Voluntary Retirement Scheme, by claiming the existence Retirement Scheme, by claiming the existence Retirement Scheme, by claiming the existence of of of relationship as workmen with the employer. relationship as workmen with the employer. relationship as workmen with the employer. 8.8.8. I have perused the Order passed by the have perused the Order passed by the have perused the Order passed by the Industrial Industrial Industrial Court, which does not suffer from any Court, which does not suffer from any Court, which does not suffer from any illegality illegality illegality or impropriety and hence does not require or impropriety and hence does not require or impropriety and hence does not require interference interference interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. in exercise of writ jurisdiction. in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Consequently Consequently Consequently the petition is summarily dismissed. the petition is summarily dismissed. the petition is summarily dismissed. .... .... .... [A.P.DESHPANDE, [A.P.DESHPANDE, [A.P.DESHPANDE, J.] J.] J.]