Case: A.Satyanarayana Reddy  Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court

4. As the factual matrix would unfurl, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms. No. 25 dated 21st May, 2001, provided for a special compensation package for the employees. The condition that was incorporated in the package was to the effect that the amount of compensation was to be paid to the workmen only in the event if they had not opted for employment with the transferee Company. We shall refer to the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) at a later stage.5. As the factual score would further undrape, the appellants opted for voluntary retirement and they were paid the amount of special compensation in terms of the VRS. It is apposite to note here that as the said scheme did not make any provision for payment ofcompensation, the appellants moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by preferring Writ Petition No.16916 of 1998. The relief sought in the writ petition was resisted by the transferee Company urging that the workmen having accepted the benefits under the VRS and there had been cessation of relationship between the employer and employee, the writ petition was not maintainable and the relief sought in the writ petition could not be acceded to. The learned Single Judge upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties opined that it would be appropriate for the writ petitioners to approach the Industrial Tribunal and work out their remedies by way of a claim petition and by leading appropriate evidence before the said Court. The High Court, be it noted, granted liberty to the workmen to raise all issues which were available including those which had been raised in the writ petition, and accordingly disposed of the writ petition.6. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the workmen filed a petition under Section 33C(2) of the Act claimingcompensation before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur that formed the subject matter of C.F.R. No. 4319/2004 IIIM.P. /2004. The Labour Court dismissed the application as not maintainable on the foundation that the claimants were not workmen under Section 2(s) of the Act having received all the benefits under VRS. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Labour Court, the appellants herein preferred W.P. No. 4196 of 2005. The learned Single Judge referred to the authority in A.K. Bindal (supra), adverted to the decision of the Bombay High Court in Pal v. Pal VRS Employees Welfare Association, 20021 LLJ Bombay 527, that dealt with "existing individual rights" in the context of Section 33C(2) of the Act, distinguished the decision rendered in Government Soap Factory, Bangalore v. Labour Court, AIR 1970 Mysore 225 and eventually held that the Labour Court had correctly exercised the jurisdiction by coming to hold that the writ petitioners were no more workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act and hence, there was no warrant for any interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Dissatisfaction ofcompelled the writ petitioners to prefer Writ Appeal No. 820 of 2005 and the Division Bench concurred with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge in view of the dictum of this Court in A.K. Bindal (supra). Hence, the present appeal by special leave. We have already noted how the matter has been placed before the

Court's reasoning:
16. We need not refer to the other clauses as they do not really provide for any kind of benefit but stipulate the various aspects for implementation of the VRS and the procedure to be adopted. On a perusal of the VRS, it is clear as day that it did not deal with thecompensation. As has been laid down in Pritam Singh Gill (supra), a claim pertaining toof suspension allowance could be agitated under the said provision in spite of the employee being dismissed from service. In A.K. Bindal (supra) theBench has held that after acceptance of the scheme and availing of benefits under VRS an employee could not claim higher wages. The controversy was different. If the VRS had mentioned about thecompensation, needless to say, the claim would have been covered and the amount received by the workmen would have been deemed to have been covered the quantum ofcompensation. That is not the factual position. Therefore, the controversy that arose in Pritam Singh Gill (supra) and the dispute that emanated in A.K. Bindal (supra) are quite different. Hence, we are disposed to think that there exists no conflict between Pritam Singh Gill (supra) and A.K. Bindal (supra). We think it appropriate to say that though there is cessation of relationship between the employee and the employer in VRS but if it does not cover the past dues likecompensation, subsistence allowance, etc., the workman would be entitled to approach the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Act. If it is specifically covered, or the language of VRS would show that it covers the claim under the scheme, no forum will have any jurisdiction.