VIJAY KUMAR AND ORS. versus WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 12 S.C.R. 425 · Decided: 22-11-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

VIJA Y KUMAR AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LTD. AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 22, 2007 
[DR. ARIJITPASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM,JJ.] 
B 
Industrial Disputes Act, I 947: 
-. 
s. 33-C(2)-Application by erstwhile workmen claiming benefits c 
under a settlement arrived at between employer and its workmen after 
they had opted for voluntary retirement and had been paid amounts 
under the VR. Scheme-HELD: Settlement covered only cases of 
existing employees and not of erstwhile workmen-Voluntary 
' 
Retirement Scheme. 
D 
~' 
The appellants-workmen opted for voluntary retirement under the 
Scheme floated by the respondent-employer on 26.5.1995 and were paid 
the amounts accordingly. Subsequently, on 13.10.1995, a settlement was 
arrived at between the respondent-Management and its workmen with E 
regard to the wages and retirement age of the workmen. The appellants 
along with others made an application under s.33-C(2) of the Industrial 
Disputes Act, 1947 claiming the benefits granted under the settlement. 
The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court allowed the application. In 
the writ petition flied by the employer the High Court held that the view F 
~ 
of the Tribunal was unsustainable. 
In the instant appeal it was contended for the appellants that the 
Settlement covered the permanent workmen on the rolls on 30.6.1995, 
and as they continued to be on rolls beyond 30.6.1995, they were entitled 
to the benefits. For the respondent it was contended that at the time G 
'-J 
the settlement was arrived at, the appellants were not existing workmen 
and the benefits under the settlement were relatable to future 
production targets. 
425 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
426 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 12 S.C.R. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: A bare reading of the settlement clearly shows that it 
covered only cases of exi~ting employees. The question of any erstwhile 
workman attaining specified production target does not arise. 
[Para 8) [429-B] 
A.K. Bindal v. Union of India, [2003) 5 SCC 163; CEAT Ltd. v. 
Anand Abasaheb Hawaldar and Ors., [2006) 3 SCC 56 and UP. State 
Road Transport Corporation v. Birendra Bhandari, [2006) 10 SCC 211, 
relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5787 of 
2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.10.2000 of the High Court 
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in LPA No. 14 of2000 (0 & M). 
S.B. Sanyal, Subhro Singh and Goodwill Indeever for the 
Appellants. 
Ashok Desai, Nageshwar Rao, A.S. Chadha and Meera Mathur 
for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. I. Challenge in this appeal is to the 
judgment of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court 
dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellants questioning 
F the legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge dismissing 
the writ petition. 
2. The controversy lies within a very narrow compass. The appellants 
were employees of respondent No. I (hereinafter referred to as the 
G 'employer'). A voluntary retirement scheme was floated by the employer 
on 26.5.1995. Undisputedly, appellants and 125 others opted to be 
covered by the scheme. They were paid the amounts required to be paid 
under the scheme. Subsequently, a settlement was arrived at between the 
management and the workmen through the registered Union on 
H 13.10.1995. The settlement was in terms of Section 12(3) of the Industrial 
+ 
• 
' 
VIJA Y KUMAR v. WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LTD. 
427 
[PASAYAT, J.] 
Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act'). 143 persons including the present A 
appellants raised a dispute on two issues; one relating to the age of 
retirement and the other relating to monetary benefits. According to them, 
the settlement arrived at on 13 .10.1995 also covered their cases and they 
were entitled to higher amounts. The claim was made by an application 
under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. The Presiding Officer, Industrial B 
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as the 
'Tribunal') held that the claimants were entitled to the benefits flowing from 
the settlement and that the claimants were entitled to be continued in 
service by treating age of retirement to be 58 years. The employer filed 
a writ petition before the High Court. Learned Single Judge held that the C 
view of the Tribunal is unsustainable. It was held that Section 33-C(2) of 
the Act does not apply to the facts of the case and no benefit was 
available under the settlement. The essenti

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