Dismissed

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

Bombay HC12 Feb 2009LPA/305/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Letters Patent Appeal examined whether voluntary retirees could maintain an Industrial Court complaint regarding a subsequent, more beneficial Voluntary Retirement Scheme. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the relationship of employer and employee lapsed upon acceptance of benefits under the first scheme and did not subsist in perpetuity.

What did the court decide?

Letters Patent Appeal dismissed. Civil Application dismissed. No additional relief granted on late claim of unpaid dues.

Narayan B.Pagdhare and Ors. Vs Bajaj Auto Limited and… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

 .{1}.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.305 OF 2007
 IN
 WRIT PETITION NO.7043 OF 2006

¶4

 WITH
 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.315 OF 2008
 IN
 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.305 OF 2007

¶5

 Shri Narayan Bhaskar Pagdhare
 and 2 others. ..Appellants.
 Versus
 Bajaj Auto Ltd.,
 and 4 others. ..Respondents.

¶6

 ...
 Ms.Gayatri Singh, Advocate for the appellants.

¶7

 Mr.J.P.Cama, Sr. Advocate i/b. M/s. M.S.
 Bodhanwalla & Co. for respondent No.1 to 3.

¶8

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

¶9

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

¶10

 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and
 Mr.J.P.Cama, the learned Senior Counsel for
 respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶11

 2. The case of the appellants is that they were in
 service of the respondent company. The Voluntary

¶12

 .{2}.

¶13

 Retirement Scheme was introduced in the year 2000,

¶14

 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".

¶15

 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.

¶16

 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

¶17

 .{3}.

¶18

 of "workmen" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial
 Disputes Act.

¶19

 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.

¶20

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

¶21

 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

¶22

 .{4}.

¶23

 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.

¶24

 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

¶25

 .{5}.

¶26

 after having received all benefits cannot now
 challenge the same by claiming existence of
 relationship of employee and employer.

¶27

 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.

¶28

[J.N.PATEL,J.]

¶29

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

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.

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

Ashfaque Jan Mohammed Shaikh Vs Nilofar Ashfaque Shaikh

Jayantilal Pokhrajmal Shah Vs Valiualla Samtulla Ansari and Ors.