THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WP.No.144 of 2004 O R D E R: The A.P.Dairy Development Co-operative Federation Limited, Hyderabad (APDDCFL) filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 22.8.2003 passed by the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad in M.P.No.11 of 1999 filed by the 2nd respondent herein. The 2nd respondent filed the said application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity ‘the Act of 1947’) claiming a sum of Rs.39,290/- from the APDDCFL. It was his case that he was appointed in service by the APDDCFL from 11.8.1977 and worked continuously without any break till 17.5.1997 and that he had opted for voluntary retirement under the scheme floated by the APDDCFL under Circular No.1947/PER V-2/89 dated 03.9.1996. The claim was based on his alleged entitlement to certain terminal benefits in accordance with the said Circular. While so, the APDDCFL filed its counter stating that the 2nd respondent was originally appointed as labour on casual basis on 11.8.1977 and was placed on a time scale only with effect from 01.4.1981. The voluntary retirement scheme floated by it was applicable only to regular employees and therefore the service rendered by the 2nd respondent was computed as 16 years 1 month and 16 days, taking into account the fact that he was regularly appointed only on 01.04.1981. On this basis, he was paid a sum of Rs.1,20,500/- along with an additional benefit of Rs.3427/-. Therefore, the APDDCFL disputed the entitlement of the 2nd respondent to the benefits claimed, by taking into account the service rendered by him prior to his regular appointment. In such view of the matter, the very entitlement of the 2nd respondent to the benefits claimed by him was in dispute. That being so, the Labour Court ought not to have adjudicated such a dispute in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 33-c (2) of the Act of 1947. Surprisingly, the Labour Court lost sight of this aspect and framed an issue with regard to the entitlement of the 2nd respondent for the amount claimed. Such an issue could not have been decided by the Labour Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Sec 33-c (2) of the Act of 1947. Trite to state, only disputes with regard to the computation of amounts which the workman is entitled to would be entertained by the Labour Court under the said provision and not disputes as to the very entitlement of the workman. Further, it is also to be noted that the 2nd respondent availed the benefits under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme floated by the APDDCFL, having opted for it. It has been consistently held by the Supreme Court that once the employee accepts the benefits under a Voluntary Retirement Scheme, it brings about cessation of the employer-employee relationship and the employee walks away with all his rights and cannot seek to agitate thereafter for such past rights, including the reckoning of his past service for computation of benefits. In the present case, the 2nd respondent opted for voluntary retirement, which brought about cessation of his service on 17.5.1997 and he also received substantial benefits under the said scheme. Having slept over his rights, if any, he filed the application under Section 33-c (2) only in the year 2000, which was clearly barred in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court. Thus, on counts more than one, the order of the Labour Court under challenge is unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. It is to be noted that by order dated 06.01.2004, this Court granted suspension of the said order subject to the condition that the APDDCFL deposit half of the amount payable pursuant to the order, granting liberty to the 2nd respondent to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. It is for the APDDCFL to pursue suitable remedies for recovery of the said amount if the amount has already been withdrawn and in the event the said amount has not been withdrawn by the 2nd respondent, the APDDCFL is permitted to move an appropriate application before the Labour Court for withdrawing the said amount. The writ petition is accordingly allowed but in the circumstances, without costs. __________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J 05th December, 2009 PNV