M. S. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner was an employee of the Gujarat Small Industries corporation Limited (hereafter referred as the Corporation or the respondent-Corporation) which is a Government Company. The petitioner who joined as a clerk was holding the post of Assistant when the Corporation had floated a scheme for voluntary retirement in the year 1993. The petitioner accepted the offer contained in the said scheme and was accordingly permitted to voluntarily retire w. e. f. October 21, 1993. He was paid a total amount of Rs. 1,38,834/- towards all his dues including the amount of Rs. 1,03,680/- being the amount of salary for 30 months as per the scheme of voluntary retirement. Thereafter the respondent Corporation had given future monetary benefits to its employees such as additional D. A. from July 1, 1993, Interim Relief of Rs. 100/- per month w. e. f. September 16, 1993 and L. T. C. encashment. The decision of the Corporation to give its then existing employees the aforesaid benefits were taken in 1994 and 1995. Upon coming to learn about the aforesaid retrospective benefits given to its existing employees, the petitioner submitted his representations for the said benefits till the date of his voluntary retirement till October 21, 1993. The present petition challenges the decision of the respondent-Corporation to reject the said representations. ( 2 ) THE petitioner had earlier filed Special Civil Application No. 984 of 1996 praying for the following reliefs: (A) to pay all legal dues entitled by the petitioner, forthwith. (B) to direct the respondent to give explanation why they have harassed the petitioner during his tenure of service. (C) to direct the respondent, their agents and servants to pay a Special Cost of Rs. 1 lac with 21% interest to the petitioner. (D) to pass the order to personally remain present before this Hon. Court. (E) be pleased to grant any other relief or remedy as deemed just and proper by your Lordships. After hearing the petitioner, this Court passed order dated February 5, 1996 observing that for the claims in question the petitioner will have to go to the Labour Court where on leading the evidence the Court will decide as to whether he is entitled to these amounts and if so, to what extent. The petitioner therefore sought to withdraw that petition and the petition was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioner therefore sought to withdraw that petition and the petition was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. ( 3 ) THEREAFTER the petitioner has filed the present petition contending that the earlier petition was ambiguous and, therefore, this Court had rejected the said petition on the ground that the petitioner could move the Labour Court and, therefore, the petition was withdrawn. The petitioner has submitted that the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under section 33 (C) (2) can be invoked when the claim is already adjudicated upon but disputed question or unadjudicated claim cannot be agitated under the said provisions. ( 4 ) IN my view, it is difficult to distinguish the previous order of this Court in this manner, but now that the petition is already admitted and has reached final hearing today, i have considered the petitioners grievance on merits. ( 5 ) ON merits, it appears that the respondent-Corporation had floated the scheme of voluntary retirement as per the circular dated September 29, 1993 and about 90 employees including the petitioner took benefit of the said scheme and opted for voluntary retirement with all the benefits flowing from the said scheme. As is well-known by now, employers in the private sector as well as public sector including Govt. Companies have been resorting to this policy of "golden handshake" in order to solve the problem of overstaffing and, therefore, the terms offered to the employees intending to exit under such voluntary retirement schemes are usually more generous than the benefits which the employees would get while taking voluntary retirement in the normal course. Such schemes, are floated in order to induce the employees to opt for voluntary retirement so as to reduce excess staff. It is in this context that the petitioners grievance is required to be examined. ( 6 ) THE petitioners grievance is that he has not been paid the additional dearness allowance from July 1, 1993 (i. e. for a period of four months), the interim relief at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month w. e. f. September 16, 1993 and the benefit of encashment of Leave travel Concession for the 1992-93 block. The stand of the respondent-Corporation is that the decisions of the Corporation to give the aforesaid benefits to its existing employees were taken in 1994 and 1995 (whereas the petitioner had retired under the aforesaid voluntary retirement scheme in October, 1993 ). The stand of the respondent-Corporation is that the decisions of the Corporation to give the aforesaid benefits to its existing employees were taken in 1994 and 1995 (whereas the petitioner had retired under the aforesaid voluntary retirement scheme in October, 1993 ). But such benefits were given only to the employees who were existing employees of the Corporation when the aforesaid decisions were taken and that the said benefits were not extended to the persons like the petitioner numbering about 90 who had taken the benefit of voluntary retirement scheme floated in september, 1993, because such decisions were taken in 1994-95 by which time all the 90 persons including the petitioner had gone out of service of respondent-Corporation. ( 7 ) IN view of the aforesaid background of the voluntary retirement scheme, the stand of the respondent-Corporation that those who went out of its service under the said voluntary retirement scheme were not to be given the benefits given to its existing employees with retrospective effect cannot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary. Even letter dated October 21, 1993 (Anexure B Page 23) shows that an amount of Rs. 1,31,834/- was paid to the petitioner including the amount of ex-gratia payment as per voluntary retirement scheme at Rs. 1,03,680/- and payment of accumulated Earned Leave (Rs. 26,012/-) and salary for October, 1993 as full and final settlement excluding the amount of gratuity. The gratuity amount of Rs. 39,877/- was admittedly received by the petitioner. The intention of the respondent- Corporation that the aforesaid amount was hy way of full and final settlement is thus manifestly clear from bare reading of the aforesaid letter and also from the fact that it was expressly stated that bonus for 1993-94 when declared in 1994 will be paid to the petitioner later on if applicable. There is no grievance of the petitioner regarding no payment of any such bonus for 1993-94 nor is it the petitioners case that bonus was declared in 1994. There is no grievance of the petitioner regarding no payment of any such bonus for 1993-94 nor is it the petitioners case that bonus was declared in 1994. Once the relationship between the employer and the employee is snapped, under such special one time scheme of voluntary retirement which is popularly known as golden handshake, which is more beneficial than the normal voluntary retirement scheme, it would be unreasonable to require the employer to give such ex-employees the benefits which are subsequently given to the existing employees with retrospective effect for a few months prior to the exit of the former. It is the categorical assertion of the respondent Corporation that no such benefit is given to any other employee who had retired under the aforesaid special scheme floated in September, 1993. It is also required to be noted that the case might have been different if the petitioner had retired under the normal voluntary retirement scheme. ( 8 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion and order dated October 21, 1993, it is clear that the amount of Rs. 1,31,834/- was intended to be in full and final settlement of the petitioners claims till the date of his retirement. ( 9 ) IN view of the above discussion, the petition is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. .