JUDGMENT Hon’ble Anjani Kumar, J.—This writ petition filed by the petitioner-employer against the award of the Labour Court (IV), Kanpur to whom the matter was referred to by the State Government under the provisions of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The labour Court has given the award dated 3.11.1998. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award the employer filed the present writ petition. 2. The following reference was made to the labour Court by the appropriate authority : “Whether denial of designation and pay-scale of Investigator to the six workmen referred to in the schedule is valid and justified or not, if not, to what benefit the concerned workmen are entitled to and from what date ?” 3. That before addressing the Court on merits, learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised preliminary objection and submitted that since these facts which came to light subsequently, may be looked into before hearing the writ petition on merits. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the production activities of the mill have come to an end in the year, 1991 and the employer moved application in the year 1992-93 under the provisions of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. During the pendency of this writ petition before this Court, a rehabilitation scheme was formulated by the BIFR under which all the concerned workmen have submitted their voluntary resignations are annexed as Annexure SA-2. Under this scheme known as MVRS the management has calculated all the dues and prepared the cheques for these workmen and paid the same and details of the amounts and the date of receipt of the cheques including the date of resignation is mentioned in the chart. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of A. K. Bindal and another v. Union of India and others, 2003 (5) SCC 163 , wherein the Apex Court has rule as under : “33. The Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) which is sometimes called Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS) is introduced by companies and industrial establishments in order to reduce the surplus staff and to bring in financial efficiency. The office memorandum dated 5.5.2001 issued by the Government of India provided that for sick and unviable units, the VRS package of the Department of Heavy Industry will be adopted. The office memorandum dated 5.5.2001 issued by the Government of India provided that for sick and unviable units, the VRS package of the Department of Heavy Industry will be adopted. Under this Scheme an employee is entitled to an ex gratia payment equivalent to 45 days’ emoluments (pay + DA) for each completed year of service or the monthly emoluments at the time of retirement multiplied by the balance months of service left before the normal date of retirement, whichever is less. This is an addition to terminal benefits. The government was conscious about the fact that the pay scales of some of the PSUs had not been revised with effect from 1.1.1992 and therefore, it has provided adequate compensation in that regard in the second VRS which was announced for all Central public sector undertakings on 6.11.2001. Clause (a) of the Scheme reads as under : (a) Ex gratia payment in respect of employees on pay scales at 1.1.1987 and 1.1.1992 levels, computed on their existing pay scales in accordance with the extant Scheme, shall be increased by 100% and 50% respectively. 34. This shows that a considerable amount is to be paid to an employee ex gratia besides the terminal benefits in case he opts for voluntary retirement under the Scheme and his option is accepted. The amount is paid not for doing any work or rendering any service. It is paid in lieu of the employee himself leaving the services of the company or the industrial establishment and foregoing all his claims or rights in the same. It is a package deal of give and take. That is why in the business world it is known as “golden handshake”. The main purpose of paying this amount is to bring about a complete cessation of the jural relationship between the employer and the employee. After the amount is paid and the employee ceases to be under the employment of company or the undertaking, he leaves with all his rights and there is no question of his again agitating for any kind of his past rights with his erstwhile employer including making any claim with regard to enhancement of pay scale for an earlier period. After the amount is paid and the employee ceases to be under the employment of company or the undertaking, he leaves with all his rights and there is no question of his again agitating for any kind of his past rights with his erstwhile employer including making any claim with regard to enhancement of pay scale for an earlier period. If the employee is still permitted to raise a grievance regarding enhancement of pay scale from a retrospective date, even after he has opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme and has accepted the amount paid to him, the whole purpose of introducing the Scheme would be totally frustrated. 35. The contention that the employees opted for VRS under any kind of compulsion is not worthy of acceptance. The petitioners are officers of the two Companies and are mature enough to weigh the pros and cons of the options which were available to them. They could have waited and pursued their claim for revision of pay scale without opting for VRS. However, they in their wisdom thought that in the fact situation VRS was a better option available and chose the same. After having applied for VRS and taken the money it is not open to them to contend that they exercised the option under any kind of compulsion. In view of the fact that nearly ninety-nine per cent of employees have availed of the VRS Scheme and have left the Companies (FCI and HFC), the writ petition no longer survives and has become infructuous.” 5. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after accepting MVRS by these workmen nothing further is payable to them nor they can claim beyond what has already been paid to them. Learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the case of A.K. Bindal has been distinguished by the apex Court in the case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, National Textile Corporation Ltd. and others v. N. T. C. (WBAB & O) Ltd. Employees Union and others, wherein the Apex Court after taking note of Bindal’s Case (supra) has held as under : “The learned Counsel for the Union of India relied on a recent judgment of this Court in A.K. Bindal and another v. Union of India, (2003) 5 SCC 163 , in support of his contention that pay revision should not be allowed. This was a case of public sector company employees seeking revision of their pay scales. It was held that employees could not claim such a right and such additional financial burden could not be placed on the Government in the absence of material before Court justifying the same. This case pertains to public sector undertaking namely Fertilizer Corporation of India. This case is not attracted in the facts of the present case. First, here the Government has a statutory liability for the wages, salaries and dues of the workers. Second, pay revision was being allowed in case of one category of workers within the same organization, while it was being denied to another category of workers, giving rise to discrimination. Therefore, Bindal’s case has no relevance so far as the present case is concerned. So far as the argument regarding no relief being admissible to the workers in the Mills in view of rehabilitation schemes being worked out before the BIFR, we have to note that the proceedings have been pending since 1993, i.e. for more than ten years. The management was all along fully aware of the demand of the workers of the Mills in this behalf. Their cases have been pending in Courts since much before the rehabilitation schemes were conceived of. How long shall the concerned workers be continued to be denied their legitimate claims? In the various deliberations with the workers it has been noted that rehabilitation schemes are independent of any orders that may be passed by this Court. Therefore, pendency of the rehabilitation schemes before the BIFR is not a sufficient ground for us to deny relief to the staff/sub staff working in the Mills............” 6. Learned Counsel for the respondent further relied upon a circular issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour dated 8.1.2003. A perusal of the same which has been annexed as Annexure-SCA-I to the supplementary counter affidavit clearly demonstrates that the scheme which has been formulated, in my opinion cannot take away the rights of the workmen so far as the resignations are concerned which are annexed as Annexure 2 wherein it has been categorically stated by the workmen concerned that these resignations are being tendered subject to the award impugned in the present writ petition. 7. Learned Counsel for the respondent further relied upon the decision of learned Single Judge of this Court passed in Civil Misc. 7. Learned Counsel for the respondent further relied upon the decision of learned Single Judge of this Court passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 53350 of 2003 in the case of National Textile Corporation U.P. (Ltd.) v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 15.4.2005, wherein learned Single Judge has relied upon after taking note of Bindal’s case (supra) the case of Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, APSIDC Ltd. and another v. R. Varaprasad and others, 2003 (98) FLR 104 has held: “In the opinion of the Court the vested rights, which have been accrued in favour of the workmen under the award of the labour Court and have already been computed in terms of the money for the period prior to the acceptance of the V. R. S. are necessarily to be enforced in accordance with law and such rights are not lost in any manner by the acceptance of the V. R. S. by the workmen. This Court has no hesitation to hold that the vested rights of the workmen, which accrue for the period prior to the acceptance of the V. R. S., are not lost under the V. R. S.” 8. Learned Counsel for the respondent further relied upon a decision of learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gorakhpur and others, 2005 (104) FLR 839, wherein this Court has held that effect and operation of the award already passed in favour of the workman cannot be taken away merely by acceptance of Voluntary Retirement Scheme, though no payment has been made under the scheme till date. The existing claim of the workman, which has already been upheld by a Court of law, which is also subject matter of the instant petition, will not cease. 9. Before the labour Court the parties have exchanged their pleadings and evidence according to which it is not disputed that the employers trained these six employees upto March, 1982 on the post concerned and some of their colleagues were given designation of Supervisor but subsequently the signatures of these workmen were taken by the employers on the blank paper and their designation were changed to that of clerk. The employers have raised objection that the dispute is raised after about ten years and not immediately after alleged action of the employers are allegedly taken therefore, the reference should not be answered and should be returned back. Other objections which have been raised by the employers are with regard to the employers being Union of India and therefore labour Court ought not have answered the question referred to it. The labour Court rejected the aforesaid objection in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case reported in 1977 (75) FLR 922, wherein similar objection was overruled by the labour Court and the view taken by the labour Court is upheld by this Court. On the question of merits, the labour Court assessed the material on record including the evidence adduced on behalf of the employers and have arrived at the conclusion that the action of the employers is neither legal, nor justified. The labour Court therefore directed the wages of the concerned workmen to be revised w.e.f. date of reference and directed the fixing of wages of the concerned workmen to be in the pay-scale of Rs. 330-560 w.e.f. 9.3.1982. The labour Court further directed that the wages are revised by the award and the difference of the wages already paid and wages now fixed shall be paid by the employers to the workmen. 10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner tries to demonstrate that the findings recorded by the labour Court suffer from error apparent on the face of record but in my opinion he failed to demonstrate that the findings recorded by the labour Court is either perverse or in any way suffers from error apparent on the face of record. Thus, in my opinion, no interference is required by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. In view of what has been stated above, in my opinion, this objection deserves to be rejected. 12. In this view of the matter, this writ petition has no force and is dismissed. Petition Dismissed. ———