DEADLINE OR BENEFIT ACCEPTANCE, MARKS THE POINT OF CULMINATION FOR WITHDRAWAL FROM THE VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHEME !!!!
Karma Management Global Consulting Solutions Pvt. Ltd. One of the top 5 labour law consulting firms in the country, has recently hit upon yet another significant milestone in the journey of tying up SUNDEEP PURI ASSOCIATES AND ADVOCATE, where both these Firms have Formally joined hands together to collaborate and create a bigger alliance by upscaling its business on pan India basis and Internationally to give greater reach of its Services together to its hundreds of clients all over.
Sundeep Puri & Associates (SD Puri& Co.) with 55+ years of existence and helmed by Adv Sundeep Puri & Adv Ravi Paranjpe is one of the largest retainer firms in India specializing in “Employment Laws” advising the Corporate Sector. The Firm boasts of some clients being associated for the last 55+ years and the majority for the last 30-40 years. They have extensive experience in counseling Foreign MNCs & Indian MNC Clients having multi-locational Factories &/or offices Pan-India on a daily basis on a wide range of “Employment & Labour” issues, keeping in view the cultural diversity of the workforce such as Acquisitions, Mergers, Consolidations, Reductions in the workforce, Maintaining union-free environment by not undermining the principles of collective bargaining & also preserving operational flexibility in unionized settings, providing tailor-made models for conflict-free, productivity conducive Industrial Environment, as also in respect to Applicability of the various labour laws. They believe in solutions-oriented Practical Advice backed by Law.
On the other hand, Karma Management Global Consulting Solutions Pvt. Ltd. 2004 is backed by 25 years of prior experience since 1979, operating on Pan India basis and Internationally in the Americas and EMEA, helmed by Pratik Vaidya, is a leading giant in payroll management, compliance and governance, human resource services, professional Employment staffing, and onboarding, recruitment and talent acquisition, advisory and consultations thereby offering a plethora of services with quick turn-around solutions including in-house flagship AI/ML based tech solutions so as to help organizations of different types and stature to perform better in Human Resource ensuring Risk Management, Compliance and Governance across Environmental, Social and Corporate laws and grow bigger.
So in this regard, besides the business profile of Karma relating to labour laws, it will now focus whole time also on legal and para-legal issues and matters with the collaboration of Sundeep Puri & Associates who are already into legal matters such as disputes, litigation, and court cases.
LET US EXAMINE DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES OF WHAT THE RULING WAS ON WITHDRAWAL FROM THE VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHEME ONCE THE DEADLINE OR ACCEPTANCE IS DONE.
This will give the readers enough clarity on similar views expressed by different courts of law but the verdict remains the same.
The ruling of the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court :
Nagpur: The Nagpur bench of the Bombay high court has held that an employee cannot seek reinstatement after opting for a voluntary retirement scheme (VRS) and accepting retiral benefits.
Sadiq Quereshi who was Assistant Manager with Corporation Bank opted for voluntary retirement but later decided to withdraw his resignation letter of May 22, 2017. He filed an application on September 13, 2017, for withdrawing the resignation and continuation of service with full back wages.
The Bank, however, refused to reinstate him and provided retiral benefits including a pension from September 14, 2017. He filed a second application on March 12, 2020, with the same demands.
When the Bank refused to accept his offer, the petitioner challenged the bank’s decision in the high court last year praying for reinstatement contending that he had twice submitted applications for withdrawing his resignation.
Though the petitioner was entitled to withdraw his offer of voluntary retirement before the intended date, accepting various retirement benefits for more than 3 years disentitles him of any relief under section 226 of the Constitution of India. He cannot be permitted to take inconsistent positions at the same time, one by seeking to withdraw his notice of voluntary retirement and continue to receive the retirement benefits, the Division Bench comprising of Justice Atul Chandurkar and Justice Govinda Sanap said.
The ruling of the Gujarat High Court :
The instant petitions came up before the Court challenging the Award of the Labour Court, Vadodara, whereby it was held that since the workmen had applied for withdrawal from their company’s Voluntary Retirement Scheme after having enjoyed the benefits of the scheme and without refunding the same, therefore they cannot challenge their termination. The Bench of Biren Vaishnav, J., while deciding upon the petition, observed that once the Labour Court has exercised its jurisdiction judiciously, the High Court can interfere with the Award, only if it is satisfied that the same is vitiated by any fundamental flaws.
Two Sides of The Coin :
Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. in the course of implementing the policy of disinvestment, diverted its share capital to Reliance Industries Ltd., which became a major stakeholder of the Company. The Company then promoted two schemes via Circular dated 06-03-2007 – the Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS) and Special Separation Scheme (SSS), in order to downsize its staff. Under the scheme, regular employees of the Vadodara Complex were eligible to apply and the same was operative from 06-03-2007 to 20-03-2007.
The Petitioners stated that about 2400 employees applied under the scheme; however, the Scheme did not mention any period vis-a-vis providing an opportunity to an employee to withdraw themselves from the scheme. Under the threat of being transferred to Jamnagar, the petitioners were compelled to apply under the scheme, which they did on the last date i.e. 20.03.2007.
Having so applied, in the late evening of 20.03.2007, they orally requested for withdrawal of their Voluntary Retirement Applications. Their request was refused by the Officer of the Company on the grounds that the data was already locked in their computer and reconsideration/withdrawal was not possible.
The petitioners further stated that on 21-03-2007 they requested for the withdrawal of their applications, however, an endorsement was made that the competent authority shall take a decision. According to the petitioners, the letters dated 20.03.2007 were posted on 26.03.2007 informing the petitioners of the acceptance of their applications. The petitioners claimed that this “acceptance of letters” was a deception put on by the Company to show that the offer of the employees was accepted and that there was concluded contract and, therefore, no withdrawal can be permitted. The case of the petitioners was that despite letters in June and August 2007, no decision was taken and, therefore, the action of the Company in accepting their applications was illegal and the petitioners must be reinstated in service.
The Company stated that the VSS / SSS Scheme was open up to 20-03-2007 and 19 employees who made applications for withdrawal on or before 20.03.2007 were considered by the Company and such employees were allowed to withdraw their applications. They stated that the present petitioners did not withdraw their applications before acceptance. Moreover, they accepted all the benefits flowing from the scheme and after receiving the benefits, they raised an industrial dispute. The Company’s stand was that once having accepted the amounts under the Scheme, it was not open for them to turn around and claim the benefits of reinstatement.
Award of the Labour Court: The dispute came up before the Labour Court, Vadodara, who, upon perusal of the facts and contentions, held that the workmen (petitioners herein) were unable to establish that they were threatened to be transferred to Jamnagar if they did not take VRS. The Labour Court also held that the employees had applied for withdrawal after having enjoyed the benefits of the scheme and after being silent for a period of three months, have objected to the VSS/SSS without refunding the benefits; therefore, they have no right to challenge their termination now.
Observations by the High Court: After a detailed perusal of the proceedings before the Labour Court, facts and evidence presented, the Court noted that the VSS/SSS scheme was open from 06-03-2007 to 20-03-2007 and there is nothing on record to show that even oral request for withdrawal was made even before the scheme closed. The withdrawal was made only on 21-03-2007, by which time an acceptance was issued.
The Court further stated that the Labour Court, considering the evidence of workmen and other relevant documentary evidence, concluded that it was only three months after the employee was relieved and had accepted the benefits available under the VRS, that he objected to the scheme. The Court also pointed out that the employee, after five months, lodged his protest to say that he had accepted the amounts subject to his objection. This clearly was an afterthought.
With the afore-stated observations, the Court held that the Labour Court had judiciously exercised its jurisdiction while deciding the instant matter, therefore the High Court does not need to interfere with the Award. The instant petitions were thus dismissed.
Conclusion
Karma is not only a Regulatory HiTech Firm but is also basically an out-and-out HR dispensing Organization dealing with Employee Life Cycle, Performance Management, Training & Development, Grievance Handling, Litigation & Disputes, Redundancy, Layoff, and Retrenchment issues of various establishments who have been in a clientele relationship with Karma Management for over 10 years.
Just to touch upon the gravity and the handling of the above issues in the Court of Law, you may know that this kind of dispute often happens when there is a difference of opinion resulting in a dispute between employers or an employee or an association of employers with workers or trade unions. There may be a disagreement on rights, conflicting interests, a dispute over termination of employment, a dispute among trade unions within one enterprise or an employee taking different stands or wavering in thoughts and actions, misconduct, and disciplinary issues that could be caused by differences in implementation or interpretation concerning the laws and regulations, work agreements, work ethics, company regulations, or the collective bargaining agreement, HR policies and practices, Directives, etc.
In general, any dispute mentioned above generally moves to the Court of Law rather than taking some preliminary steps or finding alternative solutions or having consultations or dialogues, negotiations, mediations, conciliations or even arbitrations. Arbitration decisions are final and binding.
Karma Management has over 6000 workforces on its roll as indirect employees who have been outsourced on our payroll for doing the work of the clients at their workplace. Sometimes, misunderstandings and issues do crop up given the human nature of our psychological side. But with the expertise that the Karma Management Team of over 200 direct staff on our rolls has, these issues and whatever concerns get sorted out amicably through healthy communication and dialogues.
Now that we have joined hands with S. D. Puri & Co. Who are leading Advocates in India for dispensing legal and para-legal work, please feel free to approach us for initial discussions and presentations so that we can showcase the good work that we are doing in this field of HR Services including arbitration, conciliation, and adjudication by courts.
Proprietory blog of Karma Global Tech Management Firm
This blog has been collated and compiled by the internal staff of Karma with the knowledge and expertise that they possess, for its monthly newsletter Issue 04 of October 2022 in case of specific or general information or compliance updates for that matter, kindly reach out to the
Marketing Team – Kush@karmamgmt.com / yashika@karmamgmt.com