Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. M.A. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
(2.) In this writ application, the prayer of the petitioner is for quashing the order dated 30.10.2009 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in M.J. Case No. 02 of 2007, by which the claim of the petitioner for 100 months wages in the basic wages of Rs. 3090/- per month and dearness allowances plus VDA amounting to Rs. 2038/- per month in place of 60 months has been rejected.
(3.) The petitioner and other workmen of respondent- company had given a statement of demand to the Managing Director of respondent-company with respect to giving the same benefits as per the Voluntary Retirement Scheme floated in September, 1999 to the workmen who had accepted the Voluntary Retirement Scheme of the year 1998. Since the demand was not fulfilled individual applications were preferred by the workmen. So far as the present writ application is concerned it has been pleaded in the application preferred under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act that the petitioner was employed in the service of the respondent on 21.04.1969. It has been stated that on account of forcible termination of his service under duress, coercion, threat, intimidation and undue influence the petitioner had accepted the Voluntary Retirement Scheme in spite of a few years of service left as per the contract of employment under the Certified Standing Orders of the company. It has been stated that the petitioner did not accept the Voluntary Retirement Scheme on his own free will. It has been stated that at the relevant time of cessation of service the petitioner was drawing a basic wage of Rs. 3568/- per month and D.A. + V.D.A. @ Rs. 1973/- per month besides other allowances and benefits. The petitioner claims in such application that there was discrimination with the other workmen in payment of monetary benefits under the voluntary retirement scheme and as such the petitioner is legally entitled to receive the dues of difference of monetary benefit.;