JUDGMENT : S.K. Agnihotri, J. The Petitioner, by this petition seeks to challenge the validity and legality of the order dated April 1, 1992 (Annexure P/1), passed by the Labour Court, Bilaspur in Case No. 29/I.D.A./89 Basanta Bai v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., Bhilai. The brief facts in nutshelf are that the Respondent No. 1 (Smt. Narmada Bai) was appointed in the Petitioner organization on June 16, 1978 as Piece Rated Mazdoor. On October 28, 1987 (Annexure P/3) the Respondent No. 1 made an application for voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme No. 9/82 (Annexure P/4-A) (in short, "Scheme No. 9/ 82"). This Scheme No. 9/82 was extended from time-to-time by various circulars and lastly it was extended vide circular dated May 14, 1988 (Annexure P/4-G). The application of the Respondent No. 1 was accepted in accordance with the Scheme No. 9/82 and she was relieved on January 1, 1988. On the date of voluntary retirement, the age of the Respondent No. 1 was 39 years and 7 days and the qualifying service was 9 years, 6, months and 15 days. In accordance with the Scheme No. 9/82, the Respondent No. 1 was entitled to get compensation equivalent to 15 days average wages for every completed year of service or any part, thereof in excess of six months. The Respondent No. 1 was paid the entire amount towards C.P.F., Gratuity and SEWA. 2. It appears that after getting the benefits of voluntary retirement in accordance with the Scheme No. 9/82, the Respondent No. 1 filed an application u/s 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court, Bilaspur for grant of retirement compensation to the tune of Rs. 84,701 in addition to the amount already accepted by her. The ground of challenge by the Respondent No. 1 appears to be, that at the time of her voluntary retirement, a new Voluntary Retirement Scheme was introduced vide circular No. M&R-89/96, dated October 15, 1986 (Annexure P/5), but the employer had not granted the voluntary retirement benefits to the Respondent No. 1 in accordance with the said scheme. Thus, the Respondent No. 1 was entitled to the compensation of Rs. 84,701. 3. Thus, the Respondent No. 1 was entitled to the compensation of Rs. 84,701. 3. The case of the Petitioner-employer before the Labour Court was that the Scheme dated October 15, 1986 was not applicable in the case of the Respondent No. 1, as it was applicable in cases of only those employees who have completed 40 years minimum age and 10 years of qualifying service. 4. The Labour Court by impugned order dated April 1, 1992 (Annexure P/1) allowed the application filed by the Respondent No. 1 holding that the employer on its discretion may grant retirement compensation by relaxing the Rules and as such, directed the Petitioner-employer to pay a sum of Rs. 84,701.92. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in support of his submission placed reliance on a judgment and order dated 16th September, 2009, passed by this Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 6847/2006 Sarvanand Giri v. Group General Manager, Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited and submits that once the proposal or offer of the Petitioner-employer for voluntary retirement, in accordance with the Scheme No. 9/82, was accepted by the Respondent No. 1 by making the application dated October 28, 1987 (Annexure P/3), thereafter, the same was accepted and the required payments were made, thus, the contract was concluded. It cannot be reconsidered on the basis of a subsequent application, either to the employer or to the Labour Court for grant of benefit of some other scheme, after receiving the benefits as envisaged under a particular contractual scheme. 6. Notice was issued to the Respondents on November 2, 1992. As per the office report dated June 25, 2005 the notice was served to the Respondents. On. June 28, 2005 the S.P.C. was issued to the Respondent No. 1. In spite of the service of notice and issue of S.P.C, none appeared nor any representation was made on behalf of the Respondent No. 1. 7. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and perused the documents appended thereto. 8. It is well-settled that once an employee has accepted the retiral benefits under voluntary retirement scheme, he cannot resile from its earlier stand as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bank of India and Others Vs. O.P. Swaranakar etc., (2003) 2 SCC 721 at p. 843 of LLJ. 24. However, it is accepted that a group of employees accepted the ex-gratia payment. O.P. Swaranakar etc., (2003) 2 SCC 721 at p. 843 of LLJ. 24. However, it is accepted that a group of employees accepted the ex-gratia payment. Those who accepted the ex-gratia payment or any other benefit under the Scheme, in our considered opinion, could not have resiled therefrom. The Scheme is contractual in nature. The contractual right derived by the employees concerned, therefore, could be waived. The employees concerned having accepted a part of the benefit could not be permitted to approbate and reprobate nor can they be permitted to resile from their earlier stand.... 9. This Court in Sarvanand Giri v. Group General Manager, Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited (supra) has held that "It is trite law that if the voluntary retirement has been sought pursuant to some Voluntary Retirement Scheme, the same shall not be governed by the provisions of law but by the terms and conditions of the Scheme." 10. In HEC Voluntary Retd. Emps. Welfare Soc. and Another Vs. Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. and Others, (2006) 3 SCC 708 Hon'ble Supreme Court held that unless a statute or statutory provision interdicts, the relationship between the parties to act pursuant to or in furtherance of the voluntary retirement scheme is governed by contract. In para 22 Hon'ble Court held as under at p. 250 of LLJ: 22. Financial considerations are, thus, a relevant factor both for floating a scheme of voluntary retirement as well as for revision of pay. Those employees who opted for voluntary retirement, make a planning for the future. At the time of giving option, they know where they stand. At that point of time they did not anticipate that they would get the benefit of revision in the scales of pay. They prepared themselves to contract out of the jural relationship by resorting to "golden handshake". They are bound by their own act. The parties are bound by the terms of contract of voluntary retirement. We have noticed hereinbefore that unless a statute or statutory provision interdicts, the relationship between the parties to act pursuant to or in furtherance of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme is governed by contract. By such contract, they can opt out of such other terms and conditions as may be agreed upon. In this case the terms and conditions of the contract are not governed by a statute or statutory rules. 11. By such contract, they can opt out of such other terms and conditions as may be agreed upon. In this case the terms and conditions of the contract are not governed by a statute or statutory rules. 11. Having heard learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and having regard to the afore-stated facts and situation, in the light of various decisions, quoted above, it is held that the Respondent No. 1 was entitled to the voluntary retirement benefits only in accordance with the Scheme No. 9/82, as she had submitted her application dated October 28, 1987 under that scheme only. No further retirement compensation could be granted to her in the light of some other scheme. 12. In view of the foregoing, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated April 1, 1992 (Annexure P/1) is quashed and set aside. No order as to costs.