HINDUSTAN COPPER LTD. AND ANR. versus BANSHI LAL AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 665 · Decided: 08-12-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

HINDUSTAN COPPER LTD. AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
BANSHI LAL AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 8, 2005 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
B 
Contract Act, 1872: 
Offer and acceptance-Closure of Unit-Offer to employees to either 
opt for VRS or get transferred to another unit-Employees opting for VRS-- C 
Later seeking withdrawal of same-Employer not allowing the withdrawal-
High Court ordering reinstatement on ground that offer was withdrawn 
before its acceptance-Challenge to-Held: The offer made by an employee 
could be withdrawn by him before it was accepted-The scheme being 
contractual in nature, the provisions of Indian Contract Act would apply. D 
Service Law-VRS-Offer of VRS withdrawn by employee before its 
acceptance-Effect of 
On closure of a unit of Appellant-Government Undertaking, the 
respondents-employees working therein were offered to either opt for the 
Voluntary Retirement Scheme or get transferred to another unit Respondent- E 
employees opted for voluntary retirement However, later they withdrew their 
offers. Appellant did not allow respondents to withdraw in view of the 
stipulation contained in the option from filled up by the respondents that the 
option once exercised could not be withdrawn. Aggrieved respondents filed 
Writ Petition which was dismissed by Single Judge. Division Bench allowed F 
the appeal holding that since respondents had withdrawn their offers before 
the same were accepted, they are entitled to reinstatement with back wages. 
Hence the present appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The offer made by an employee could be withdrawn by him before G 
it was accepted. The scheme was contractual in nature, the provisions of the 
Indian Contract Act, 1872 would apply. No exception, thus, can be tak-en to 
the findings of the Division Bench of the High Court. However, there cannot 
be any doubt or dispute whatsoever that even if the termination of services of 
665 
H 
666 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A the Respondents herein was found to be illegal, they could be directed to be 
continued in service until they reached their age of superannuation. 
Respondents have already received a huge amount in terms of the voluntary 
retirement scheme. The amount payable to them by or on behalf of the 
Appellant, thus, must be directed to be adjusted with the amounts of back 
wages, current wages or the future wages, if any. The Appellant shall be 
B entitled to transfer the Respondents to the units which are working on such 
post or posts which they had been holding on the relevant dates. 
c 
(668-D-H; 669-A) 
Bank ofindia and Ors. etc. v. O.P. Swarnakur and Ors. etc., [2003) 2 
sec 721, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1807 of2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.7.2000 of the Rajasthan High 
Court in D.B.C.S.A. No. 1387of1997. 
Deba Prasad Mukherjee for the Appellants. 
D 
Vijay Hansaria, Ms. Minakshi Sarma, Kanishk Gupta and Sunil Kumar 
Jain for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. The Appellant is a Government of India Undertaking. 
E It had various copper mines and factories situate in different parts of the 
country. One of its mines was situate in the District of Alwar in the State of 
Rajasthan known as 'Dariba Copper Project'. It is stated that the mines 
situated in other States are lying closed except one mine being Malij Khan 
situate in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Having regard to the fact that the 
said Dariba Mine was to be closed, a notice of closure had been issued. The 
F Appellant Company, however, had also floated a Voluntary Retirement Scheme 
in the year 1993. Options were called for from the employees of the said 
Dariba Mine Project as to whether they would like to be transferred to the 
mines operating in other States or opt for the voluntary retirement scheme. 
Out of241 employees working in the said Dariba Mine, 112 opted for voluntary 
G retirement under the scheme. I 0 of them, however, later on withdrew their 
offers. They were not allowed to do so by the Appellant herein on the premise 
that as the options had been exercised in printed proforma which contained 
a clause that such option once exercised could not be withdrawn; their offers 
stood accepted. 
H 
Having regard to the aforementioned stand of the Appellant, a writ 
HINDUSTAN COPPER LTD. v. BANSHI LAL [SINHA, J.] 
667 
petition was filed by them which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge. A 
An intra-court appeal, howe

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.