JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. This writ application is directed against the order dated 12.12.1994 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi, as an appellate authority under Section 28 of the Bihar Shops & Establishment Act (in short the said Act) in B.S.E. Appeal No. 3/93 by which he has set aside the order passed by the Labour Court, Jamshedpur in B.S.E. Case No. 4/85. 2. The petitioner was in the service of the respondent-M/s. Tata Iron & Steel Company as personal officer. It is contended that the respondent formulated a scheme as Voluntary Retirement Scheme (in short VRS) to extend the facility and benefits to its employees. It is alleged that in 1985 the petitioner was called to accept voluntary retirement and he was forced on 10.1.1985 to accept voluntary retirement as per the scheme otherwise he was threatened to be dismissed and victimized. Petitioners further case is that he, accordingly, made an application for voluntary retirement under the VRS which was accepted but he was not paid all the benefits as provided under the scheme. The petitioner then moved the labour court under Section 28 of the said Act. 3. The respondent-management appeared before the labour court and filed its show cause stating, inter alia that the VRS as mentioned by the petitioner never came into existence as the same was not notified and there was no such rule for payment or voluntary retirement. It was contended that there is a practice in the Company to make ad hoc ex gratia payment to the officers who voluntarily retire from the services of the Company. The Company offered ex gratia payment to the petitioner of Rs. 36,500/-over and above his dues by way of gratuity etc. The respondent denied the allegation that the petitioner was called upon to accept voluntary retirement and he was forced to accept the same. 4. The labour court, after hearing the parties, allowed the application holding that VRS was in force in the Company and, according to the said scheme, an employee would be entitled to get the benefits of six months salary as notice pay be ex gratia payment upto one months salary for each completed year of service. 5. Aggrieved by the order passed by the labour court the respondent preferred an appeal before the Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi, in B.S.E. Appeal No. 3/93. 5. Aggrieved by the order passed by the labour court the respondent preferred an appeal before the Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi, in B.S.E. Appeal No. 3/93. The appellate authority (the tribunal) after considering the entire facts of the case and the evidences adduced on behalf of the parties, came to the conclusion that the respondent never forced the petitioner-appellant to take voluntary retirement nor the petitioner-appellant ever desired to take voluntary retirement from the services of the respondent-company under VRS. 6. Mr. Kalyan Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner firstly drawn my attention to the documents annexed with the writ petition particularly Annexure-4 which is a copy of the VRS which was in force in the company. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner, by letter dated 8.1.1985 (Annexure-2), informed the respondent that he wished to take voluntary retirement from the service under VRS which was accepted by the company. Learned counsel submitted that the tribunal while disposing of the appeal has taken into consideration those facts which were not even pleaded by the company and decided the appeal on extraneous consideration. 7. Mr. G.M. Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, seriously assailed the order passed by the labour court which held that the management failed to produce the scheme. According to the learned counsel neither there was any VRS notified by the company nor it was ever given statutory force. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellate court rightly held that serious question of law ought not to have been decided by the labour court under Section 28 of the said Act. 8. From perusal of Annexure-1 to the writ application which is a letter dated 8.1.1985 issued by the General Manager (Operation) of the respondent-company it appears that the respondent decided to terminate the services of the petitioner. In paras 6 and 7 of the writ petition the petitioner has made out a case that on receipt of the letter of termination he met the superior officers to ascertain the reasons behind Issuance of the letter and the company, in response, persuaded the petitioner to seek voluntary retirement. Annexure-2 is the copy of the letter written by the petitioner to the General Manager seeking voluntary retirement. Annexure-2 is the copy of the letter written by the petitioner to the General Manager seeking voluntary retirement. The said letter reads as under : To, The General Manager (Operation), Jamshedpur Dear Sir, For some personal reasons I wish to take voluntary retirement from the services of the Steel Company. Kindly allow me to retire voluntarily with immediate effect and arrange to make payment of my settlement dues, under V.R. Scheme. Yours faithfully, Sd/L.P. Upadhayay. (L.P. Upadhayay) T. No. 76804 P. No. 44533 ACPM CPM (Work) Office, Jamshedpur Date : 8.1.85 9. The aforesaid letter is a typed copy of the original but after the end of the letter the words "under V.R. Scheme" is hand written (emphasis given). The aforesaid offer of voluntary retirement was accepted by the company by Annexure-3 which is a letter dated, 10.1.84. The said letter reads as under : INTERNAL COMMUNICATION FORM Confidential LP/Con/27/85 10.1.83 L.S. Upadhayay, T. No. 76804 P. No. 44533 A.C.PJVI. CPM (Work)s Office. Sd/ Thro C.P.M. (Works) With reference to your application dated 8th January, 1985, you are allowed to retire voluntarily from the services of the Steel Company with immediate effect. Our letter No. IP/Con/18.1.85 may be treated as cancelled. Sd/ (General Manager (Operations) 10. Form perusal of Annexure-3 it appears that there is no mention that the voluntary retirement of the petitioner was accepted under any VRS. The petitioner fully relied upon Annexure-4 which, according to the petitioner, is the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. But from perusal of Annexure-4 it appears that it is an extract of the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors wherein a decision was taken to enforce VRS. However, there is no document to suggest that any VRS was notified or was in force in the company. The labour court proceeded on the basis that VRS was in force in the company. Para 7 of the order or the labour court is worth to be quoted hcreinbclow : "AW/1 the applicant has supported his case as made out in the application. He has stated that he was appointed as personal officer in the service of the O.P. in the month of November, 1959 and he worked continuously till 10.1.1985. He has further stated that he was not at all connected with the manufacturing process of the company. He has described his nature of work. He has stated that he was appointed as personal officer in the service of the O.P. in the month of November, 1959 and he worked continuously till 10.1.1985. He has further stated that he was not at all connected with the manufacturing process of the company. He has described his nature of work. He has also stated that General Manager of the company Mr. Kinni called him to his office on 8.1.1985 when he was told that Managing Director has taken a decision that he should be given voluntary retirement in accordance with the voluntary retirement scheme of the company. On 10.1.1985 Shri I.N. Jha; Chief Personal Manager told him that if the applicant accepts voluntary retirement under Voluntary Retirement Scheme, he would get all the facilities provided therein. It is further stated by the applicant that he met Mr. R.H. Mody on the same day who also promised that all the benefits under Voluntary Retirement Scheme would be given to him. As directed by Mr. Mody he met Mr. Sarthy and obtained a copy of the said scheme and thereafter opted for voluntary retirement under great pressure and mental tension. He has also stated that company accepted his voluntary retirement under voluntary retirement scheme and cancelled the termination letter." 11. Form perusal of Para 7 of the order quoted hereinabove it is clear that the petitioner himself admitted that he obtained a copy of the scheme and, thereafter, opted for voluntary retirement but the copy of the VRS has not been produced or filed before the labour court. On the contrary the respondent denied the existence of any such VRS. Despite the aforesaid fact the labour court has erroneously drawn adverse inference for non- production of the copy of the VRS by the respondent-company. The tribunal, taking into consideration all these facts, has rightly come to the conclusion that no such VRS was in force in the company. Paras 16, 17 and 18 of the order of the tribunal are worth to be quoted hereinbelow : "It has further been urged before me by Sri Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant that Ext. The tribunal, taking into consideration all these facts, has rightly come to the conclusion that no such VRS was in force in the company. Paras 16, 17 and 18 of the order of the tribunal are worth to be quoted hereinbelow : "It has further been urged before me by Sri Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant that Ext. 3 could have been said to be only proposal regarding voluntary retirement scheme but the said proposal regarding voluntary retirement scheme was not notified and since the proposal regarding voluntary retirement scheme was not notified, the voluntary retirement scheme should not have been said to be in existence by the learned lower court. On the other hand it has been urged before me by Sri Trivedi, the learned counsel for the respondent that the proposal regarding voluntary retirement scheme as contained in Ext. 3 was notified but not a chit of paper has been filed on behalf of the respondent and to show that the proposal regarding voluntary retirement scheme as contained in Ext. 3 was notified. It has further been urged before me by Sri Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant that as per Ext. 2 the service of the respondent was terminated and that salary for the month of January, 1985 and the notice pay were ordered to be remitted to the Bank Account of the respondent and he was asked to collect his other dues such as gratuity, provident fund etc., as per rules on which the respondent addressed Ext.. 4 to the General Manager (Operation), Jamshedpur seeking therein voluntary retirement from the services of the appellant company on some personal reasons. It has further been urged that Ext. 4 does not show that the respondent was forced to take voluntary retirement nor the Ext. 4 shows that the respondent had expressed his desire to take voluntary retirement from the services of the appellant company under the voluntary retirement scheme and that a perusal of Ext. 4 further shows that a prayer was made in the said Ext. to make payment of his settlement dues and further that "under the voluntary retirement scheme" appears to have been written subsequently. 4 further shows that a prayer was made in the said Ext. to make payment of his settlement dues and further that "under the voluntary retirement scheme" appears to have been written subsequently. On the other hand it has been urged before me by Sri Trivedi, the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent was called upon on 8.1.1985 to take voluntary retirement and on 10.1.1985 he was forced to take voluntary retirement but neither a perusal of Ext. 2 nor a perusal of Ext. 5 shows to the effect that the respondent was allowed to retire voluntarily from the services of the appellant company with immediate effect and the Ext. 2 might be treated as cancelled. It has further been urged before me by Sri Kumar. the learned counsel for the appellant that the Ext. 6 was filed on behalf of the respondent to show that as per Ext. 3 the payment was made to Mr. N. Mishra, Manager (Social Services) but a perusal of Ext. 6 does not show that the payment made under different heads to the above named Mr. N. Mishra was made on taking his voluntary retirement under the voluntary retirement scheme rather different amount was being paid by the appellant company to different employees on his taking voluntary retirement besides paying the concerned workmen his legal dues towards Provident Fund, Gratuity, unpaid wages etc. On the other hand Sri Trivedi, the learned counsel for the respondent has urged before me that the payment towards different heads which is apparent from Ext. 6 was made to the above named Sri N. Mishra on his taking voluntary retirement under Voluntary Retirement Scheme and that even if it is admitted for the sake of argument that the different amount was or is being paid to the different workmen as ex gratia payment besides his legal dues towards Provident Fund, Gratuity, unpaid wages etc., the same can be said to be discriminatory in nature." 12. Taking into consideration all these facts 1 do not find any infirmity or illegality in the appellate order passed by the tribunal. The tribunal has rightly held that the words "under V.R. Scheme" were subsequently added in the letter whereby the petitioner sought simple retirement voluntarily. 13. For the aforesaid reasons I do not find any merit in this writ application which is, accordingly, dismissed.