ITI Limited v. ITI Ex/VR Employees/Officers Welfare Association (SC) BS208933
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- Markandey Katju and Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.

C.A. Nos. 5646-5976 of 2003. D/d. 5.11.2009.

ITI Limited - Appellant

Versus

ITI Ex/VR Employees/Officers Welfare Association and others - Respondents

For Appearing Parties :- K. Kasturi, Sr. Advocate, K.K. Mani, Ankit Swarup Dayan Krishnan, Guatam Narayan for Nikhil Nayyar, Naveen R. Nath, Ms. Lalik Mohini Bhat, A.T.M. Sampath, Ms. K. Sarada Devi, Bimal Roy Jad, Anil Bhatt, Khwairakpam Nobin Singh S.K. Kulkarni, M. Giriesh Kumar for Vijay Kumar Advocates.

Voluntary Retirement Scheme - Compensation - Employee receiving payment under VR Scheme - Subsequently claiming higher amount because of subsequent wage revision - Specific clause in Circular referring that all calculations related to compensation paid under Voluntary Retirement Scheme whether right or wrong shall not be reopened - High Court granting amounts over the amount of compensation paid to employees under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme - Order of High Court not justified.

[Paras 10 to 13]

Cases Referred :-

HEC Voluntary Retd. Employees Welfare Society v. Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited, (2006)3 SCC 708 : 2006-II-LLJ-245.

Bank of India v. O.P. Swarnakar, 2003(4) S.C.T. 787 : (2003)2 SCC 721 : 2003-I-LLJ-819.

ORDER

1. Delay in filing the application for substitution is condoned, substitution is allowed and abatement is set aside.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. These appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment of the Karnataka High Court at Bangalore dated September 13, 2001.

4. The facts of the case in detail have been set out in the impugned order and hence we are not repeating the same here.

5. The short question involved in these appeals is "whether after an employee has accepted the VRS Scheme and received payment under it, can he subsequently claim a higher amount because of subsequent wage revision with retrospective effect by the employer."

6. This Court in the case of HEC Voluntary Retd. Employees Welfare Society and Another v. Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited and Others, (2006) 3 SCC 708: 2006-II-LLJ-245, vide paragraphs 11 & 12, observed as under at p. 248 of LLJ :

7. Learned counsel for the appellant, hence, submitted that the High Court was in error in granting the amounts over and above the amounts which were paid to the employees under the VRS Scheme.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, relied on a Circular No. 409 dated September 6, 1995, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure P-2 to these appeals. The relevant clause 1.2 reads as under :-

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to another clause of the same circular viz., Clause No. 23.1, which states as follows :

10. On a plain reading of both the clauses together, quoted above, it is evident that the expression "Voluntary Retirement" in clause 1.2 of the said circular does not refer to voluntary retirement under the VRS Scheme but it refers to voluntary retirement independent of such scheme. This is evident if we read the said clause along with the subsequent clause i.e. clause 23.1 which states that calculations related to compensation paid under Voluntary Retirement Scheme shall not be re-opened.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that wages had subsequently been revised with retrospective effect and hence in the eye of law it has to be deemed that at the time when an employee got the benefits under the VRS Scheme, the calculation was done wrongly and the amount should have been calculated on the higher pay.

12. We do not find substance in this submission. In our opinion, at the most it can be said that a wrong calculation was done when the benefits were paid to an employee under the VRS Scheme. This will not benefit the employees because clause 23.1 of the circular, quoted above, does not speak of only valid calculations but it refers to all calculations under the VRS Scheme, irrespective of whether they are valid or invalid calculations, and they shall not be re-opened. In other words, if an employee has got the benefits under the VRS Scheme, whether right or wrong, it cannot be re-opened and an employee cannot claim any higher amount on account of subsequent revision in the wages retrospectively.

13. For the reasons given above, these appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. No costs.

Civil Appeal Nos. 5571-5643/2003, 5977-6023/2003 and Civil Appeal No. 7274/2004.

Civil Appeal Nos. 7269-7273/2004, 7275/2004, 7276-7292/2004 and 7293-7326/2004.

1. In view of our order passed by us today in Civil Appeal Nos. 5646-5976/2003, these appeals are also allowed and the impugned judgments are set aside. No costs. However, we direct that any additional amount paid to the employees who opted for VRS Scheme shall not be recovered.

Appeal allowed.