Dismissed

Krishna Dhondu Ipte and Ors. v. M/S. Bayer India Ltd.

Bombay HC12 Feb 2009LPA/103/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Letters Patent Appeal against the Industrial Court dismissal, the Court held that employees who accepted Voluntary Retirement Scheme benefits cease to be employees and cannot later challenge the scheme or claim unfair labour practice based on subsequent hiring, citing inordinate delay.

What did the court decide?

Letters Patent Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.

Krishna Dhondu Ipte and Ors. Vs M/S. Bayer… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

 .{1}.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.103 OF 2008

¶4

IN

¶5

 WRIT PETITION NO.7006 OF 2007

¶6

 Krishna D. Ipte
 and 11 others. ..Appellants.
 Versus
 M/s. Bayer India Ltd.. ..Respondent.

¶7

 Mr.M.V.Limaye, Advocate a/w. Mahendra Agarekar,
 Advocate for the appellants.

¶8

 Mr.R.N.Salgaonkar, Advocate i/b. M/s.Salgaonkar & Co.
 for the respondent.

¶9

CORAM : J.N. PATEL AND
SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ.

¶10

DATED : 12TH FEBRUARY, 2009.
 P.C.:-

¶11

 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the appellants -
 orig. petitioners and the learned Advocate for the
 respondent - orig.respondent.

¶12

 2. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against
 the order of the learned Single Judge upholding the
 order of the Industrial Court dismissing the
 complaint on merits as well as on the point of delay.

¶13

 .{2}.

¶14

 3. The appellants had filed a complaint alleging
 unfair labour practice under Items 5, 9 & 10 of
 Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. The case of the
 appellants is that the respondent employer had
 introduced voluntary retirement scheme on or about
 2nd March, 1995. The said Scheme was again displayed
 on 23.2.1995. The appellants had applied for the
 benefits of the said scheme on 23.3.1995 and the
 applications were accepted w.e.f. 1st April, 1995.
 It is an admitted fact that the appellants were paid
 all the benefits under the said Scheme. However,
 some time in the month of February, 1999, they came
 to know that in the posts they were holding, some
 other employees were recruited and, therefore, the
 employer was guilty of unfair labour practice on this
 ground and other grounds.

¶15

 4. The respondent contended that as the appellants

¶16

 have taken the benefits under the VRS long back,
 there does not exist any relationship of employer and
 employee. According to the respondent company, the
 appellants i.e. original complainants ceased to be
 in the employment of the company from the closing
 hours of 30.3.1995. The Industrial Court held that

¶17

 .{3}.

¶18

 there was no relationship of employer and employee
 between the parties and moreover there was inordinate
 and unexplained delay in filing the complaint and the
 complaint came to be dismissed.

¶19

 5. The learned Single Judge has confirmed the order
 of Industrial Court. Hence, this Letters Patent
 Appeal.

¶20

 6. 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. 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
 after having received all benefits cannot now
 challenge the same by claiming existence of

¶21

 .{4}.

¶22

 relationship of employee and employer.

¶23

 7. The terms and conditions of VRS-95 did not
 indicate any element of coercion or force and it was
 left to the choice of the employees either to respond
 to the same or not to apply for it. The appellants
 had opted for the VRS 1995 & accepted all legal dues
 without any protest. They have not raised any
 grievance at the relevant time, thus all of them
 ceased to be employees of respondent company on
 30.3.1995. Once an employee opts for VRS, which has
 been consented and agreed between the parties then
 thereafter no employer employee relationship exists
 between them. Merely stating that after appellants
 had received the benefits under the VRS-95 they came
 to know in February, 1999 that some other employees
 were recruited in their place, cannot be any basis to
 state that there is unfair labour practice under
 Items 5, 9 or 10 of Schedule IV of the Act. Here is
 a case where the complainants collected the benefits
 of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme on their own
 volition and after four years approached the
 Industrial Court with a complaint of unfair labour
 practice on utterly frivolous grounds.

¶24

 .{5}.

¶25

 8. As far as the condonation of delay is concerned,

¶26

 it is seen that the appellants took VRS in 1995.

¶27

 However, the complaint came to be filed in the year
 1999 in respect of benefits obtained by them in the
 year 1995. The appellants have opted for VRS 1995

¶28

 and got the monetary benefits therefrom and they have

¶29

 not raised any grievance about the same at the
 relevant time. They raised the grievance for the

¶30

 first time after four long years. No sufficient
 reason has been stated by the complainants in the

¶31

 delay condonation application. There is a delay of

¶32

 four years and no cogent reason in respect of delay
 has been given by the appellants. In such case, it
 cannot be said that the delay has been satisfactorily

¶33

 explained. The delay, as stated earlier, is
 inordinate. Even otherwise, on merits also the
 matter does not call for any interference. Letters

¶34

 Patent Appeal is dismissed.

¶35

[J.N.PATEL,J.]

¶36

 .{6}.

¶37

[SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]

Krishna Dhondu Ipte and Ors. v. M/S. Bayer India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Dhondu Ipte and Ors. v. M/S. Bayer India Ltd.

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

Murthy Upadhye Vs B.M.C. and 2 Ors.

B.J. Patel Vs Mumbai Housing and Area Development Board and Anr.

Kudunthail John Raju Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ashfaque Jan Mohammed Shaikh Vs Nilofar Ashfaque Shaikh

Jayantilal Pokhrajmal Shah Vs Valiualla Samtulla Ansari and Ors.

Narayan B.Pagdhare and Ors. Vs Bajaj Auto Limited and Ors.