HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18 OF 2003 ORDER: The 3rd respondent was employed as a Typist with the 2nd petitioner. On account of the loss, being sustained by it, the 2nd petitioner came forward with a scheme of voluntary retirement (for short ‘VRS’) for its employees. The 3rd respondent and various others opted to avail the benefit of the VRS. By citing financial crisis being faced by it, the 2nd petitioner came forward with a proposal that the employees, who have chosen to avail the VRS, would be paid 70% of the benefit immediately and the balance 30% would be paid as and when its financial condition improves. Accordingly, the employees, who took VRS, were paid 70% of the wages and they retired from service in April 1997. 2. The 3rd respondent approached the petitioners for payment of 30% of the VRS benefits. Stating that his demand was not acceded to, the 3rd respondent filed MP No.132 of 2000 before the Labour Court – I, Hyderabad under section 33 – C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’). He contended that there was no justification for the petitioners in withholding that amount. 3. Petitioners opposed the petition by raising certain objections. According to them, the amount was payable only when the financial condition has improved and since no such improvement has taken place, the 3rd respondent cannot demand it. Objection was also made as to the maintainability of the petition. 4. Through its order dated 30-03-2002, the Labour Court directed the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.12,105/- with interest at 18% per annum to the respondent. Petitioners feel aggrieved by the same. 5. Heard Sri M. Dilip Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Labour. None appears for the 3rd respondent. 6. Petitioners do not dispute their obligation to pay the amount of Rs.12,105/- representing 30% of the VRS benefits to the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent and other employees have exhibited their benevolence by agreeing not to press for payment of 30% of the VRS benefits, till the financial condition of the 2nd petitioner improves. Advantage of that was taken and the amount was not paid for quite a long time. The employees, on the one hand, lost their employment with the petitioners and on the other hand, were denied of the benefits. The case is squarely fits into Section 33 – C (2) of the Act. Further, the petitioners have already deposited the amount and the 3rd respondent was permitted to withdraw the same. Nothing remains to be decided. 7. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J December 21, 2010. KTL