THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.16429 of 2000 ORDER: The order of the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum- Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad in M.P. No.28 of 1997 dated 11.06.1999 is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioners, nine in number, are all permanent employees of the National Textile Corporation and were hitherto employed with the 3rd respondent. The respondents introduced a voluntary retirement scheme whereunder certain monetary benefits were given to those who offered to retire voluntarily. Among the benefits extended is an amount equivalent to one and half months wages, i.e., (pay + D.A/V.D.A), as ex-gratia. The petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of the Additional Industrial Tribunal contending that one and half months wages was equivalent to 45 days wages; the employees were entitled to have Sundays and holidays treated as paid holidays; and they were paid only 39 days wages, instead of the 45 days wages which they were entitled to be paid as ex-gratia. The Additional Industrial Tribunal, in the order under challenge in this writ petition, held that clause (d) of the VRS scheme merely required payment of ex-gratia equivalent to one and half months wages (pay + D.A/V.D.A) for each completed year of service, nothing more nothing less; the ex-gratia payable was equivalent to one month’s wages (pay + D.A/V.D.A) and 50% of it; the 3rd respondent had paid one and half months wages accordingly; the petitioners were permanent workers of the 3rd respondent and were extended regular scales of pay; permanent employees were being paid monthly salary i.e., basic pay + D.A. and other allowances; and the petitioners were paid salaries accordingly. The Additional Industrial Tribunal further held that the monthly wages cannot be divided by 26 days to arrive at one day’s salary for multiplying each day’s wages with 45 days to arrive at the ex-gratia payable to the petitioner; and the voluntary retirement scheme does not provide for any such type of calculation. The claim petition was dismissed resulting in the present writ petition. Sri G. Ravi Mohan, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the 3rd respondent had, in fact, paid the petitioner only 39 days wages; the petitioners were also entitled to be paid ex-gratia for sundays and other holidays as they were entitled to receive wages, under the Payment of Wages Act for the said period also; and the Additional Industrial Tribunal had erred in denying them ex-gratia equivalent to six days wages. A proceeding, under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, is akin to execution proceedings. It is only if the petitioners have an accrued right, can such right be enforced in proceedings under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The right which the petitioners’ claim is the right to be paid ex- gratia under the voluntary retirement scheme. Clause (d) of the said scheme merely requires one and half months wages to be paid and not 45 days computed on 26 working days each month excluding sundays and other holidays. One and half months wages would only mean pay + D.A/VDA for one month and in addition 50% thereof, nothing more or nothing less. The petitioners’ case, as is evident from the order of the Additional Industrial Tribunal, is that their monthly wage is to be divided by 26 days excluding sundays and paid holidays and, thereby, daily wages should be arrived at which, in turn, is required to be multiplied by 45 days to arrive at 45 days wages which, according to them, constitutes one and half months wages. The VRS scheme, which forms the basis of the petitioners’ claim in proceedings under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act does not confer on the petitioners any such right to make a claim as contended by them. The VRS scheme, which requires payment of pay + D.A/VRA for one and half months, merely requires the 3rd respondent to compute each month’s wages, pay the said amount and in addition pay 50% thereof for the other half month. This the Additional Industrial Tribunal records as having been done. The order of the Additional Industrial Tribunal rejecting the claim of the petitioners herein, is in accordance with law and does not necessitate interference in certiorari proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date: 30.09.2010 MRKR