Dismissed

C.N.K.Pillai v. M/S.Killick Nixon Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC20 Mar 2006WP/572/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act regarding VRS compensation calculation. The petitioner argued for a different method of computing days per year. The court held the Labour Court's view reasonable and dismissed the petition in limine based on estoppel, as the petitioner had accepted the figure in full and final settlement.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.

C.N.K.Pillai Vs M/S.Killick Nixon Ltd. and Anr. — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 572 OF 2006 .

¶4

Shri C.N.K. Pillai

¶5

V/s. M/s Killick Nixon Ltd & anr.

¶6

... Petitioner.

¶7

... Respondents.

¶8

Shri S.S. Pathak and T.R. Yadav for the petitioner.

¶9

Mrs. N.R. Patankar with Shri V.P. Sawant for the respondents.

¶10

CORAM : V.C.DAGA, J.

¶11

DATED : 20.3.2006.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

Heard rival parties.

¶14

. This petition is directed against the order

¶15

dated 30.9.2005 passed by 11th Labour Court at

¶16

Mumbai, under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. (I.D. Act).

¶17

. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶18

submitted that amount of compensation @ 15 days per year for 34 years was wrongly calculated. In his

¶19

submission, it ought to have been divided by 26 and not 31 days.

¶20

Per contra, learned Counsel for the

¶21

respondent submitted that as per VRS Scheme company was to pay compensation at the rate of 45 days salary ( Basic+ D.A.+ H.R.A.) from the date of

¶22

retirement for each year of service or part thereof

¶23

in excess of 6 months.

¶24

. The learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the last drawn salary of employee to be considered for VRS would mean that the salary drawn in the month in which he was seeking voluntary retirement. He further submitted that so far as payment of compensation is concerned, the same was accepted by the workman in full and final settlement without reserving any right. Before acceptance of the amount, calculations were shown to him and he accepted the same without raising any dispute. In his submission, had he raised any dispute in this behalf, employer would not have accepted his request for grant of V.R.S. Having accepted the same; now he cannot be permitted to raise further claim by not accepting method of calculation made known to him before hand. Now, the petitioner is estopped from challenging the calculations and payments made. Learned Counsel for the respondent further submits

¶25

that at any rate, this claim cannot be adjudicated

¶26

upon by the Labour Court in 33-C(2) proceedings.

¶27

. In my considered view, the view taken by the

¶28

Labour Court is a reasonable and possible view. The impugned order cannot be said to be perverse. This petition is therefore, liable to be dismissed in

¶29

limine with no order as to costs.

¶30

. Needless to mention that in the event

¶31

petitioner decides to adopt any other remedy other

¶32

than remedy provided under section 33(C)(2) of the

¶33

I.D.Act, this order shall not come in his way.

¶34

. In the result, petition is dismissed with no

¶35

order as to costs.

C.N.K.Pillai v. M/S.Killick Nixon Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.N.K.Pillai v. M/S.Killick Nixon Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Pce Electro Controls Pvt.Ltd. Vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and Recovery Officer

Infomedia India Employees Union @ Tata Donnelley Employees Union Vs M/S.Infomedia India Ltd.@ Tata Infomedia Ltd.

Dayanand Savlaram Mali and Ors. Vs M/S.Bayer India Ltd.

Ashok Muthana Vs the Employees Provident Fund Organistion and Anr.

The Proprietor (M/S. M.S.S. Fabrication) Vs Vijaya Rajaram Sakhare

C.H.Thakur Vs the Associated Cement Companies Ltd. and Ors.