THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. Nos. 1093 and 17729 of 2005 COMMON ORDER: W.P. No. 1093 of 2005: This writ petition is filed by the management of Singareni Collieries Limited against an Award made in LCID No. 87 of 2002 dated 29.4.2003 whereunder the management was directed to pay six months’ wages, as per the last drawn salary, to 1st respondent in lieu of employment. It appears, 1st respondent was employed as a Scavenger in the Health Department of the petitioner-Organisation and she worked for more than 18 years. She applied for voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, on health grounds, so that her son Shoban Babu could be appointed as Scavenger in her place. Otherwise, her normal date of superannuation was 28.2.2002. But, since she applied for voluntary retirement, she and her son Shoban Babu were sent for medical examination. The said Shoban Babu was found medically fit to be appointed as Scavenger and respondent No.1 was declared as medically unfit so that she can retire voluntarily under the Scheme, for providing employment to her son. But, it appears that her husband was also working in the same Organization and he too retired from service voluntarily on medically grounds under V.R.S. and their son Ravinder was provided employment as Badli Worker, in 1993. As one of the dependents was already provided employment under V.R.S., the management refused employment to Shoban Babu in lieu of retirement of his mother – 1st respondent herein, under the very same Scheme. It was the case of the management that when wife and husband were working in the same Organization and both of them retired voluntarily on medical grounds, only one of the dependents would be provided employment and not more than one. Whereas, in this case, it appears, both mother and son were sent for medical examination and the mother i.e. 1st respondent was declared unfit and the son-Shoban Babu was declared fit to hold the post of Scavenger. However, on finding the above fact that one of her sons, namely, Ravinder was already appointed under the very same Scheme when her husband retired voluntarily, the employment of Shoban Babu was rejected. The case of respondent No.1 before the Labour Court was that when she applied for voluntary retirement under the V.R.S. on medical grounds for providing employment to her son, she was not informed about these niceties of law as to ineligibility of her second son. Had she been informed that in case she is found to be medically unfit her son would not get employment in view of the fact that employment was already provided to her another son Ravinder because of retirement of her husband under V.R.S., probably she would not have pressed for retirement under V.R.S. The scheme which is applied in case of 1st respondent is only for providing employment to one of the dependents. May be, 1st respondent was not aware of law. In such situation, it was mandatory on the part of the management, before accepting her retirement under V.R.S., for the purpose of providing employment to her son Shoban Babu, to inform that her son is not entitled for such employment in view of the fact that her another son Ravinder was already employed under the very scheme when her husband retired from service. After all, respondent No.1 was only a Scavenger and illiterate lady and she is not expected to know about the niceties of law and circulars issued by the petitioner-management. May be, the V.R.S. is meant for the purpose of benefit to only one dependent of the family. But, the management was duty bound to inform respondent No.1 as to her ineligibility to retire under the said Scheme. It is not in dispute that the Voluntary Retirement Scheme on medical grounds is meant only for the purpose of seeking employment to the dependents. Once that is so, her application for retirement on medical grounds voluntarily could have been rejected and she could have been informed that she cannot retire that way since she cannot claim any benefit under the said Scheme even if she has been found unfit to hold the post otherwise. This was not followed by the management. However, the Labour Court considered the matter in a different way invoking sympathy aspect against Scavenger lady of 60 years and directed petitioner- management to pay six months’ wages as per last drawn salary, instead of holding that the management had not informed 1st respondent as to her eligibility to retire voluntarily on medical grounds for the purpose of providing/seeking employment to her children. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, it must be deemed that the petitioner-management has not verified the facts properly before 1st respondent was permitted to undergo medical test along with her son, who was seeking employment, and before her case was accepted for voluntary retirement on medical grounds for providing employment to her son. Under those circumstances, I deem it appropriate to mould the relief granted by the Labour Court i.e. payment of six months’ wages as per the last drawn salary as that of remuneration in lieu of wrongful acceptance of retirement of 1st respondent by the petitioner-management. The Award passed by the Labour Court is accordingly modified as that of remuneration in lieu of wrongful acceptance of retirement of 1st respondent by the petitioner-management and the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. No order as to costs. W.P. No. 17729 of 2005: This writ petition is filed by the workman seeking a Certiorari calling for the records from 3rd respondent pertaining to C.I.D. No. 87 of 2002 and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for any further relief than what is already granted by the Labour Court, which is modified and confirmed in the above writ petition. Therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 31-5-2010. MVB.