The High Court dismissed two writ petitions challenging the Labour Court’s order directing workmen to refund Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) benefits to the employer to continue adjudication on claims of coercion.
Writ petitions dismissed; Labour Court orders confirmed; reference to be disposed expeditiously.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO.48329 OF 2018 (L-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.48330 OF 2018 (L-RES)
IN W.P. NO.48329 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by SHYAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
ALL ARE RESIDING AT C/O. NO.5/2,
MYLARALINGESHWARA NILAYA,
CHANNAPANAPALYA,
NEAR SAPTAGIRI LAYOUT, TUMAKURU – 572 101.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI VIJAY KRISHNA BHAT M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BENGALURU-560 058 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ROOPASRI S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 (VC); SMT. RASHMI RAO, HCGP FOR R-2 & R-3; NOTICE TO R4 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O. DATED 30/01/2019)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.08.2018 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU IN REF.NO.19/2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-G.
IN W.P. NO.48330 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
BENGALURU-560 079. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, SRI G.R. SHIVASHANKAR.
HALE GANGAPPA LAYOUT, CHIKKABIDRAKALLU, NAGASANDRA POST, BENGALURU-560 073.
(BY SRI VIJAY KRISHNA BHAT M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
(BY SMT. ROOPASRI S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 (VC); SMT. RASHMI RAO, HCGP FOR R-2 & R-3; SRI K.SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.08.2018 PASSED ON I.A. NO.3 BY THE I ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU IN REF.NO.13/2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-G.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
NC: 2024:KHC:29848 WP No. 48329 of 2018 C/W WP No. 48330 of 2018
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
ORAL ORDER
Both the writ petitions are taken up together since common questions are involved in these petitions.
‘workmen’ and ‘company’ for the sake of convenience.
counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Roopasri S., learned counsel for Sri Somashekar, learned counsel for respondent No.1 (VC); Smt. Rashmi Rao, HCGP for respondent Nos.2 & 3 and Sri K.Srinivasa, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and perused the material on record.
amount received by the workmen. Learned counsel submits that the demand made by respondent No.1company is after six long years from the date of disbursement of the benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the acceptance of VRS by the petitioners-workmen is under pressure and coercion, and they were forced to receive the payment under VRS, which aspect has been totally overlooked by the Labour Court.
1 2011 LLR 1009
no audience to go further with the petitions and sought to dismiss the petitions.
the only point that arises for consideration is,
“Whether the petitioners-workmen are entitled to continue with the reference without depositing the amount received under the VRS?”
The workmen cannot approbate and reprobate, the workmen if intending to challenge the VRS signed by them on account of duress and coercion, the workmen ought to have deposited the benefits received there under. In all fairness, they should have first deposited the amount
which they received, and thereafter contend that they were forced to sign the VR. The Labour Court has given direction to the petitioners-workmen to deposit the amount within the stipulated time. The Apex Court under identical circumstances, in Ramesh Chandra Sankla & others vs. Vikram Cement & others2 , has held at para Nos.83, 84, 87 and 100 as under:
“83. The learned counsel for the workmen contended that the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court directing refund of amount received by the workmen to the Company was illegal, unlawful and without jurisdiction. It was submitted that once the Court held that intra-court appeals instituted by the Company were not maintainable, it ought to have dismissed them without passing any order as to refund.
84. The Division Bench, in para 7, stated:
“Learned counsel has further submitted that the respondent employee is estopped from challenging VRS and seeking reinstatement as the employee has already pocketed the money
2 (2008)14 SCC 58
and received the other benefits in accordance with the said scheme. Since the employees who have approached the Labour Court claiming that by deceitful means or coercion, they were made to accept the voluntary retirement and received the benefit thereunder, it would be equitable to direct that any employee who wants to maintain a petition under Section 31(3) of the MPIR Act against the said VRS and to seek reinstatement, should return the benefits received to the employer, subject to the condition and undertaking as offered by the learned counsel for the appellant, that in the event, the Labour Court directs refund of the amount and other benefits to the employee concerned, the same would be restored to the employee with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum. It is made clear that the Labour Court shall decline to proceed with the application of the employee who does not refund the amount to the employer as hereinabove directed. The learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the benefits being refunded to the employer during the pendency of the case before the Labour Court subject to the result of the case.”
87. The learned counsel for the Company, submitted that the direction of refund of amount
is proper, fair and in consonance with the principles of justice, equity and good conscience. If the case of the workmen is that they had never accepted retirement voluntarily; that it was imposed upon them under duress and they were forced to receive payment under voluntary retirement scheme under pressure, compulsion or coercion and were constrained to approach the Labour Court asserting that they continued to be workmen of the Company, it was expected of them even in absence of any order or direction to refund the amount received by them. They could not have resiled from the position by retaining the benefits which they never wanted but were thrust upon them against their will. The workmen could not have best of both the worlds i.e. to contend that they are still workmen of the Company but at the same time, they would not part with the amount received by them for leaving the Company for ever. The High Court, balancing equity between the parties, issued direction to return the amount received under the scheme which calls for no interference by this Court in exercise of equitable jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.
x x x
100. Even otherwise, according to the workmen, they were compelled to accept the amount and they received such amount under coercion and duress. In our considered opinion, they cannot retain the benefit if they want to prosecute claim petitions instituted by them with the Labour Court. Hence, the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court as to refund of amount cannot be termed unjust, inequitable or improper. Hence, even if it is held that a “technical” contention raised by the workmen has some force, this Court which again exercises discretionary and equitable jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, will not interfere with a direction which is in consonance with the doctrine of equity. It has been rightly said that a person “who seeks equity must do equity”. Here the workmen claim benefits as workmen of the Company, but they do not want to part with the benefit they have received towards retirement and severance of relationship of master and servant. It simply cannot be permitted. In our judgment, therefore, the final direction issued by the Division Bench needs no interference, particularly when the Company has also approached this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. ”
made on behalf of the petitioners and the order passed by
the Labour Court is justified and point framed for consideration is answered accordingly and this Court pass the following:
ORDER
(ii) The impugned orders passed by the Labour Court stands confirmed.
(iii) The Labour Court to dispose of the reference as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE
S*
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioners-workmen are entitled to continue with the reference without depositing the amount received under the VRS?
Whether the Labour Court was justified in directing workmen to refund voluntary retirement benefits to prosecute a claim of coercion?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Man Singh vs. Maruti Suzuki India LimitedReferred¶98
Man Singh vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, 2011 LLR 1009
Ramesh Chandra Sankla & others vs. Vikram Cement & othersRelied on¶108
Ramesh Chandra Sankla & others vs. Vikram Cement & others, (2008)14 SCC 58 · Who else cites this
SRI MALLIKARJUNA ET AL.
ADC INDIA COMMUNICATIONS LTD.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
KARNATAKA TRADE UNION CENTRE
SMT. BHAGYA B.R.
K.S. HEMALEKHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
