- (1.)Appellant - Original Petitioner has filed this Letters Patent Appeal ("LPA"). challenging the judgment and order dated 07/06/2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4795 of 2009 who had, in turn confirmed the judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court had directed the Petitioner to pay the workmen difference in commuted amounts paid to them as lump-sum and the amount as shown in the annexure to the Award due to them under VRS-MUMBAI-2001 and the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10/12/2001 with 18% interest from the date of the amount due till the date of realization thereof. Pursuant to the reference which was made to the Industrial Tribunal, parties filed their pleadings. Preliminary objection was raised regarding jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear the reference on the ground that Respondents herein are not workmen. Preliminary objection was dismissed. The said order was challenged before the learned Single Judge of this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 4795 of 2009. The said Writ Petition was also dismissed on 07/06/2010. Against this judgment, an SLP was filed by the Petitioner vide Civil Appeal No. 2271 of 2011. The said SLP is pending in the Apex Court. Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this LPA are as under:
(2.)A Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") was signed between the Appellant and the Respondent - Union in November, 2001. It was agreed by the Appellant that the Appellant would pay maximum amount of Rs. 14.50 lacs in four installments from 01/12/2001 to 02/05/2002 and that VRS would be announced by the Company and it would be called as VRS-Mumbai-2001. Again, fresh negotiations had taken place in respect of other demands of the Union. According to the Appellant, on 07/12/2001, the Appellant - Company framed Voluntary Retirement, 2001 for its employees. Thereafter, on 08/10-12-2001, Memorandum of Settlement was signed between the Company and Union regarding voluntary retirement. On 10/12/2001, the Company paid an advance of Rs. 25 crores to LIC towards the purchase of annuity for pension scheme of the workmen. The VRS thereafter was made applicable to the workmen, who accepted the Scheme. Dispute arose between the parties and the Union started disputing quantum of amount paid to the workmen towards the value of commuted pension and monthly pension by sending letter to the Company. Since the dispute was not resolved, finally, at the instance of the Union demands of the Union came to be referred to the Industrial Court for adjudication being Reference (IT) No. 29 of 2005.
(3.)Both the parties filed their pleadings before the Tribunal. The Union filed their Settlement of Claim and the Written Statement was filed by the Company. Thereafter, both the parties led oral evidence before the Tribunal. The Union examined Mr. Dinesh Malekar and the Company examined Mr. Sharad Sahastrabuddhe and Mr. Thanawala. The bone of contention between the parties was that the Union contended that since the offer was not fully accepted, they were entitled to register their withdrawal from the VRS and, as a consequence, they were seeking reinstatement with full back wages, continuity of service and other consequential benefits and also damages for hardship caused to them and, lastly, in the alternative, for a direction, directing the Appellant to pay the workmen difference in commuted amounts paid to them as lump-sum and amounts equivalent to 1/3rd of the total amount due to them under VRS, 2001 and for difference in the monthly payment with penal interest thereon @ 21% from the date of short payment.