.{1}. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.305 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO.7043 OF 2006 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.315 OF 2008 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.305 OF 2007 Shri Narayan Bhaskar Pagdhare and 2 others. ..Appellants. Versus Bajaj Auto Ltd., and 4 others. ..Respondents. ... Ms.Gayatri Singh, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.J.P.Cama, Sr. Advocate i/b. M/s. M.S. Bodhanwalla & Co. for respondent No.1 to 3. ... CORAM : J.N. PATEL AND CORAM : J.N. PATEL AND CORAM : J.N. PATEL AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATED : 12TH FEBRUARY, 2009. DATED : 12TH FEBRUARY, 2009. DATED : 12TH FEBRUARY, 2009. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr.J.P.Cama, the learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. The case of the appellants is that they were in service of the respondent company. The Voluntary .{2}. Retirement Scheme was introduced in the year 2000, 2001, 2002 & 2003. The appellants and many other workmen had opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme in the year 2001-2002. At that time assurance was given by the respondent Company in a document dated 31st October, 2002 that " In any case the post settlement Voluntarily Retirement Scheme, if any, will in no way provide a higher amount than the current Scheme". 3. The case of the appellant is that in the year 2005 the respondent floated another Voluntary Retirement Scheme which was more beneficial to the workmen. Hence, they moved to Industrial Court by filing a complaint contending that the respondent Company has engaged in unfair labour practices under Items 5, 9 & 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. 4. Preliminary objection was raised by the respondent about maintainability of the complaint by contending that as the petitioners have taken the benefits under the VRS long back, there does not exist any relationship of employer and employee and thus, the present appellants do not satisfy the test .{3}. of "workmen" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 5. Relying on various judgments of the Apex Court which are referred to in the order, the Industrial Court held that the appellants did not satisfy the test of workmen as there did not exist any relationship of employer and employee. Hence the Industrial Court recorded a finding that the complaint, as filed is not maintainable in the absence of existence of relationship of employer and employee between the parties. 6. The learned Single Judge confirmed the order of the Industrial Court. Hence this Letters Patent Appeal. 7. It is an admitted fact that on accepting the VRS, the petitioners have received all the benefits under the VRS. However, their case is that the VR Scheme floated in the year 2005 is more beneficial to the workmen which is in the face of the assurance given by the respondent company to the workmen in the document dated 31st October, 2002 which is titled as .{4}. an Appeal made to the workmen to seek voluntary retirement. It is seen that the assurance was only restricted to the next VRS and cannot bind the respondent company for all time to come. It is also admitted that no additional benefit was extended in 2003, however, more amount is paid in the settlement of 2005. The term of the VRS cannot be static and it was only in the year 2005, that some more favourable terms were provided to the workmen. 8. In our opinion the appellants cannot claim any subsisting right after they received the benefits under the VRS. They cannot claim that their relationship continues to subsist for years to come and they would have a locus to file a complaint, if in case, in future, some cause accrues on account of grant of better benefits under some other scheme. The relationship as is envisaged by Section 29(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be a relationship in perpetuity. If some dispute is referable to dismissal, discharge or retrenchment etc. the same could be brought before the Court but the same would require a time nexus. In our opinion the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the appellants .{5}. after having received all benefits cannot now challenge the same by claiming existence of relationship of employee and employer. 9. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the appellants stated that the appellants have not been paid all the dues which were due to them as per the VR Scheme. However, it is seen that in their complaint before the Industrial Court, no prayers have been made by the appellants or any relief sought in this regard nor any such ground was raised in the Writ Petition. Hence, at this belated stage, we are not inclined to grant any relief in respect thereof. Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. Civil Application is also dismissed. [J.N.PATEL,J.] [J.N.PATEL,J.] [J.N.PATEL,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]