Man Singh vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.& Anr

2. The relationship of employer and workman between the appellant and the respondent - company was brought to end in terms of a voluntary retirement scheme (in short "VRS") introduced by the management of the company in September, 2011. The appellant, however, alleged that he was made to take voluntary retirement under duress and, in reality, his removal from service was illegal and unjustified. On those allegations he 2 raised an industrial dispute. The appropriate Government referred the dispute for adjudication before the Labour Court, Gurgaon, vide order dated December 4, 2006. The reference is in the following terms:

7. The submission made on behalf of the appellant is fully answered by an earlier decision of this Court in Ramesh Chandra Sankla and others versus Vikram Cement and others (2008) 14 SCC 58. In Ramesh Chandra Sankla a number of workmen of Vikram Cement Company who had ceased to be the employees of Company after accepting full benefits under the scheme of voluntary retirement moved the Labour Court under 4 section 31 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 making the same allegations against the Company as the appellant in this case. In that case, the Labour Court declined to decide certain issues framed at the instance of the management as preliminary issues. The management's appeal against the decision of the Labour Court not to decide those issues as preliminary issues was rejected by the Industrial Court. The writ petition filed by the management was dismissed by a learned single Judge on the ground that the orders passed by the Labour Court and affirmed by the Industrial Court were interlocutory in nature. The management took the matter before the Division Bench which held that the writ petitions filed by the Company were under Article 227 of the Constitution and the single Judge was exercising supervisory jurisdiction; hence, intra-court appeals were not maintainable and the appeals filed by the Company were liable to be dismissed on that score alone. Even while holding that the management's appeals were liable to be dismissed as not maintainable, the Division Bench went on to hold that since the workmen had approached the Labour Court after having received the benefits under the scheme, it would be equitable to direct the concerned employees to return the benefits so received to the employer subject to the undertaking by the 5 Company that in the event the Labour Court allowed the claim and granted benefits to the workmen, the same would be restored to them by the Company with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

9. We, however, feel that the imposition of interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum was a little harsh and unwarranted. Having regard to the fact that the appellant is no longer in service, we feel that the ends of justice would meet if the direction for refund is confined only to the principal amount received by the appellant under VRS. We, accordingly, modify 7 the order of the High Court to this limited extent and direct the appellant to refund the amount received by him under VRS, without any interest. In case the amount, as directed, is deposited by the appellant by November 30, 2011, the reference shall proceed in accordance with law, otherwise it would stand quashed.

10. The appeal stands disposed of subject to the above observations and directions.

August 26, 2011.