WP(C) 1834/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA . JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV) Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 6.12.2006 passed by the Presiding Offi cer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati in Refere nce Case No.4/2004, the workmen have filed this writ petition. The workmen numbe ring 300 represented by the petitioner were in employment in the Loktak Downstre am Hydro Electric Project of N.H.P.C. Manipur. They were disengaged from the pro ject during the period from 1982 to 1984 under a particular scheme called Libera lized Voluntary Retrenchment Scheme (L.V.R.S.) notified vide Circular dated 12.7 .1984. 2. According to the petitioner, the Management had threatened to apply the Liberalized Voluntary Retirement under threat of not providing any service benef its otherwise. The petitioner asserts that it was also assured that the workmen would be absorbed in new projects. However, in spite of taking up new projects, the Management did not engage the workmen. Further grievance of the petitioner i s that although the workmen opted for LVRS but retrenchment benefits were not ex tended to them. 3. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner submitted Annexure-2 repr esentation dated 4.2.1992. The said representation yielded no result and eventua lly, a conciliation proceeding was initiated between the Management and the work ers, but the same resulted in failure on 24.12.2001. The conciliation report was submitted to the Government of India in the Ministry of Law and the Ministry by its order dated 20.11.2003 referred the industrial dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act for adjudication. The reference is as follows :- Whether the demand of Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh, Assam, and Uttar Purbanchal Regi on, Silchar for re-engagement/absorption of workers (as per list enclosed) who h ave been retrenched from their job by the management of Loktak Project of NHPC, Manipur, in Loktak Down Stream Hydro Electric Project is legal and justified ? If so, to what relief they are entitled ?’ 4. The aforesaid dispute was registered and numbered as Reference Case No.1 5 (C)/2002 and subsequently, again re-numbered as Reference Case No.4/2004 in th e Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati. 5. The Tribunal, on the basis of the materials on record, has answered the aforesaid reference by its impugned judgment and award dated 6.12.2006 rejecting the claim of the workmen. Being aggrieved, the workmen represented by the petit ioner have approached this Court by means of this writ petition. 6. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the contentions raise d in the writ petition have been denied. They have also raised the question of delay and latches. According to them, the workmen, who had been dis-engaged fro m the project during the years 1982 to 1984 cannot be re-employed after so many years. It is the stand of the respondents that the workmen had already received benefits under the relevant scheme and thus, they are not entitled to any other relief. 7. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that the particular scheme w as launched for a specific period of time. According to the respondents, the wor kers dis-engaged themselves from the project voluntarily by exercising option un der the particular scheme and that they have received substantial amount on thei r release from the project. 8. The petitioner has filed an affidavit-in-reply to the said affidavit-in- opposition filed by the respondents reiterating and re-affirming the stand in th e writ petition. It has been stated that the workmen were not provided with the benefits envisaged under the scheme and that they were forced to leave the proje ct most unceremoniously. 9. I have heard Mr. N. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner as wel l as Dr. N.K. Singh, learned counsel representing the respondents. I have also c onsidered the entire materials on record including the records of the Labour Cou rt. 10. The Tribunal by its aforesaid judgment and award has recorded its findin g that the workmen were not forced to opt for the particular scheme and that the y had voluntarily opted for the same and derived the benefits therefrom. In this connection, the Labour Court referred to the evidence on record. On the basis o f the said evidence, the Labour Court has recorded its finding that the workers voluntarily accepted the scheme and in return, they got the financial packages. As regards the voluntariness in accepting the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, the learned Labour Court has referred to Ext.B and Ext.I documents. 11. Mr. N. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, upon a reference t o the evidence on record, more particularly, the oral statements made, submitted that the fact of deprivation of the workmen from the benefits of V.R.S. and fut ure employment is an admitted position. On the other hand, Dr. N.K. Singh, learn ed counsel representing the respondents, upon a reference to the same very evide nce submitted that there is nothing to show that the workmen did not receive the benefits of V.R.S. 12. Annexure-2 is the aforementioned representation dated 4.2.1992 made by t he workmen at the first instance agitating their grievance. The representation was made to the N.H.P.C. authority on the subject of appointment of the workmen against suitable posts in the particular project called Loktak Downstream Hydro Electric Project . According to the representationists, the posts were availab le for appointment of the workmen. 13. I have carefully gone through the said representation. Since the same w as after the purported retrenchment of the workmen, the contents of the said rep resentation will be the first-hand-information regarding the claim made by the workmen. In the representation, the fact of engagement of the workmen under the particular scheme and their subsequent retrenchment was mentioned. However, it was not even remotely stated that the workmen had not been provided with the ret renchment benefits or the benefits under the scheme. What was contended is that the workmen were ready to work and for that, their future engagement in suitabl e jobs be considered. 14. In the writ petition, the claim of the workmen is two-fold. Firstly, the y have not been provided with the benefits under the scheme and that there was g uarantee for future employment, but the Management did not provide employment op portunity to them. In the said representation, none of these two contentions had been agitated although according to the petitioner, their aforesaid stand in th e writ petition was first agitated by the said representation dated 4.2.1992 (An nexure-2 to the writ petition). 15. Ext.B, Ext.D, Ext.E and Ext.H exhibited in the proceeding before the le arned Labour Court, about which mention has been made in the impugned judgment a nd award, will go to show that the workmen voluntarily accepted the Voluntary Re trenchment Scheme and the benefits thereof. Ext.B, Ext.D and Ext.H are the docum ents by which the particular workmen accepted the Voluntary Retrenchment scheme in writing and the benefits thereof. Ext.E is the letter dated 27.2.2009 addres sed to the Chief Engineer, Loktak Hydro Electric Project by the General Secretar y of Loktak Project Employees & Workers Federation requesting extension of time limit fixed in the Liberalized Voluntary Retrenchment Scheme, which was original ly fixed upto February 1989. This letter will go to show that the extension of the scheme was sought by the workmen upon acceptance of the same. 16. The scheme was applicable to the workmen and could be availed of by them and was made effective upto 31.12.1989. The scheme required to provide certai n benefits towards acceptance of the same and accordingly, the workmen had accep ted the said scheme with the benefits as evident from the aforesaid exhibits. A lthough Mr. N. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, upon a reference t o the evidence adduced by both the parties, submitted that there is nothing on r ecord to show that the benefits envisaged in the scheme were provided to the wor kmen, but there is evidence that the only plea of the workmen was that the Manag ement had assured the workmen that they would be adjusted in some projects in fu ture. As regards the plea of the workmen that they were forced to accept the Vo luntary Retrenchment Scheme, it is in evidence that the Management did not apply any such force. It is also unbelievable that the Management could obtain the s ignatures of the workmen numbering 300 by force. Had there been any force, the w orkmen would not have accepted the Scheme, as reflected in the aforesaid exhibit s. 17. The workmen have also not specified as to what are the benefits they are entitled to under the scheme and what are the amounts still to be paid to them. On perusal of the relevant clause of the scheme, it cannot be said that there w as any undertaking or assurance on the part of the Management to provide future employment to the workmen in other projects. It was a bi-parte agreement by and between the parties and the workmen having accepted the Scheme also derived the benefits therefrom. 18. There is another aspect of the matter. The workmen are not in employmen t and had been allowed to go on accepting the Voluntary Retrenchment Scheme duri ng the period from 1982 to 1984. After nearly 20 years, there is no question of their re-engagement in any other projects, a fact which the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admitted. However, he submitted that the benefits still p ayable to the workmen under the scheme should be paid to them. However, in abse nce of any material to show that the workmen are still left to be provided with some more benefits under the scheme and/or they had not been provided with the benefits as envisaged under the scheme, it is not possible to issue any directio n to provide any further benefits to the workmen under the scheme. 19. Although the workmen had been dis-engaged during the period from 1982 to 1984, they for the first time made the aforesaid representation dated 4.2.1992 and thereafter, raised the industrial dispute sometime in 2001. Thereafter, it w as in 2003, the reference was made to the learned Labour Court. There is no expl anation as to the delay caused. The learned Labour Court has duly taken note of all the facts and circumstances and passed the impugned judgment and award dated 6.12.2006. Learned Labour Court has referred to the decision of the Apex Court reported in (1996) 5 SCC 419 (Central Bank of India v. S. Satyam & Ors) in whic h the Apex Court having noticed that there was delay in approaching the Court an d thus, the third-party-interest had arisen during the interregnum, refused to g rant any relief to the retrenched employees. 20. For all the aforesaid reasons, no relief can be granted to the petitione r and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, without, however, any order a s to costs.