Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a cooperative milk processing society, challenged an interim order passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court in four complaints filed by the respondents (employees). The respondents had accepted the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) offered by the petitioner and received substantial amounts. However, they claimed that there was a difference in the amount payable under the scheme and filed complaints seeking the differential amount. Along with the complaints, they filed applications for ad-interim relief. The Industrial Court, by a common order dated 8th January 2010, directed the complainants to deposit the entire VRS amount received from the company within two months, failing which the complaints would proceed on merits. The petitioner's review application against this order was dismissed on 22nd January 2010. The petitioner then approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court noted that the respondents had accepted the VRS and the dispute was only about the differential amount, not the scheme itself. The court observed that the petitioner, in its written statement, had offered to take the complainants back into employment if they deposited the amount received with interest, but that was not the complainants' case. The High Court held that the interim direction to deposit the entire VRS amount was inconsistent with the complainants' own prayers and the admitted position. The court reasoned that since the scheme was not challenged and the dispute was only about the difference, there was no question of reverting to the original position by depositing the full amount. The High Court quashed the impugned order and the review order, allowing the writ petition with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Voluntary Retirement Scheme - Interim Relief - Dispute pertained to difference in VRS benefits where employees accepted the scheme and received substantial amount - Industrial Court directed employees to deposit the entire VRS amount received within two months - Held that such direction was inconsistent with the employees' own prayers and the admitted position that the scheme was not challenged except for the difference - The order was quashed as it went beyond the scope of the complaint and was not warranted at the interim stage (Paras 4-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court could, at the ad-interim stage, direct the complainants/employees to deposit the entire VRS amount received by them when the dispute was only about the differential amount under the VRS Scheme.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order dated 8th January 2010 and the review order dated 22nd January 2010, and directed the Industrial Court to proceed with the complaints in accordance with law. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Interim relief must be consistent with the nature of the claim
- Once VRS is accepted and dispute is only about difference
- no direction to deposit full amount received
- Industrial Court cannot pass order inconsistent with the prayers of the complainants
