ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By this petition, the petitioner company has challenged an award dated 10.2.2000 passed by the Labour Court, Surat in Reference (LCS) No.367 of 1985 whereby the learned Labour Court has directed the first party opponent company M/s. Rali Machines Limited to reinstate present respondent i.e. original second party claimant and has denied to grant the benefit of back wages. Aggrieved by the said direction requiring reinstatement of the respondent, the petitioner company has preferred present petition. 2. It appears that at some point of time, after the order of reference was made, the name of the first party (in the reference before the Labour Court) company got changed to M/s. HMP Engineers Limited and that is how present petition has been filed by the first-party company in the name and style of M/s. HMP Engineers Limited. 3. The short facts involved in the dispute between the parties, and which has given rise to present petition, are as follows:- 3.1 It appears that on or around 24th April, 1983 the company named M/s. Rali Machines Limited announced a Voluntary Separation Scheme [hereinafter referred to as the VSS for short] for employees of M/s. Rali Machines Limited. The terms & conditions of the said VSS were incorporated in the notice dated 24.4.1983 which was produced on record before the Labour Court at Exh.44. It also comes out from the record that pursuant to the said VSS, the respondent herein tendered his resignation, which was accepted by company's communication dated 2.5.1983 and thereafter, the said company made payment to the respondent. As the subsequent discussion would show, there was some grievance on the part of the respondent about the amount paid to him and it appears that he alleged that the payment was not as per the terms of VSS and the company had made short payment than what was actually required to be paid to him. Keeping aside for a while the said grievance, it needs to be mentioned that after having tendered his resignation under the said VSS and accepting the amounts paid to him, the respondent raised a dispute claiming reinstatement. The said dispute was referred for adjudication by the appropriate government to the Labour Court, Surat and it culminated into the above referred Reference (LCS) No.367 of 1985. The said dispute was referred for adjudication by the appropriate government to the Labour Court, Surat and it culminated into the above referred Reference (LCS) No.367 of 1985. In the said reference proceedings, the respondent filed his statement of claim alleging, inter alia, that he was employed in the said M/s. Rali Machines Limited w.e.f. 24.7.1973 as Assistant Supervisor and that he had worked, as such, until 2.5.1983 and that when the said VSS came to be announced, he was given to understand that the name of the company was to be changed to M/s. Rali India Limited and that he would be employed in the said M/s. Rali India Limited but he would have to accept the VSS and tender his resignation and he would have to accept the separation and only thereafter, he would be given employment in M/s. Rali India Limited. He also alleged that on such representation, he accepted the VSS and tendered his resignation. He alleged that the amounts paid to him were not full payment and though he demanded the balance amount, the same was not paid to him. He also alleged that he was not paid bonus and that he was made to accept VSS by misrepresentation. On such allegations, he claimed relief of reinstatement. 3.2 The reference was contested by the company M/s. Rali Machines Limited by filing its written statement. The allegations about the assurance claimed to have been given, were apparently denied and it was stated that the company had offered VSS under which the claimant workman had tendered his resignation which was duly accepted and the payment as contemplated under the VSS were made and that therefore, the claimant workman did not have any right in law to claim reinstatement. Other allegations in the statement of claim, were also denied and the relevant facts as per the record of the company, were placed on record of the court. On the premise of such defence, the company opposed the reference. 3.3. During the proceedings, both the sides produced various documents on record, which included the letter of resignation given by the respondent workman, copy of the VSS notified by virtue of the notice dated 24.4.1983, the communication accepting the respondent's resignation under VSS, etc. Oral evidence of the respondent was recorded below Exh.11 and on behalf of the company one Mr. During the proceedings, both the sides produced various documents on record, which included the letter of resignation given by the respondent workman, copy of the VSS notified by virtue of the notice dated 24.4.1983, the communication accepting the respondent's resignation under VSS, etc. Oral evidence of the respondent was recorded below Exh.11 and on behalf of the company one Mr. Podar was examined as its witness whose evidence was recorded at Exh.50. After conclusion of the evidence and upon hearing the submissions of both the sides, the Labour Court passed the impugned award holding that the petitioner company had not complied with the requirements under Section 25(F) and that the company had failed to honour its promise to employ the respondent claimant in M/s. Rali India Limited and that in view of the facts obtaining on record, the workman deserved the relief of reinstatement. Upon arriving at such conclusion, the Labour Court passed the impugned award dated 10.2.2000 directing the company to reinstate the respondent workman. Against the said award, the petitioner company is before this court. 4. Mr. A.K.Clerk, learned advocate has appeared for the petitioner company and Mr. D.G.Chauhan, learned advocate has appeared for the respondent workman. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. 5. Mr. Clerk, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the company had announced the VSS and the terms of the said VSS were accepted by the respondent who, with a view to taking benefit of the said VSS, tendered his resignation which was accepted by the company and payments in accordance with the terms of the VSS was made. He further submitted that after having accepted the terms of VSS and having tendered the resignation in pursuance thereof and after accepting the payments thereunder, the respondent workman, with ulterior motive, raised dispute on incorrect averments and submissions, which he could not even establish before the Labour Court. He submitted that though there was no evidence obtaining on record which would substantiate and justify the allegations made by the respondent workman, the Labour Court unjustifiably accepted the allegations and submissions of the respondent workman and without there being any supporting or justifying material, believed that the alleged assurance was given to the respondent to employ him in some other company and on such baseless allegation, the Labour Court has passed the impugned award and direction which are unsustainable. Mr. Mr. Clerk has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case between WORKMEN OF NILGIRI COOPERATIVE MARKETING SOECIETY LIMITED V. STATE OF T.N. & OTHERS reported in (2004) 3 SCC 514 in support of his contention that the grievance made by the respondent workman would not constitute industrial dispute and that there cannot be an industrial dispute with regard to contemplated employment or alleged assurance of employment. Mr. Clerk submitted that when the respondent tendered his resignation under VSS and when the company relieved him pursuant to such resignation, by no stretch of imagination such action would constitute retrenchment and that therefore, the Court is not justified in holding that there was breach of Section 25(F) inasmuch as no such occasion to comply with the requirements under Section 25(F) had ever arisen at the relevant time. Mr. Clerk submitted that the observations and findings in the impugned award are against the provisions of law and contrary to the evidence obtaining on record as well as without any material to support and justify the findings and directions. 6. As against the said submission of Mr. Clerk, Mr. Chauhan for the respondent workman submitted that it has been practice of the petitioner company to change its name from time to time and under the guise of changing name and VSS, the company keeps on terminating services of its workmen. He further submitted that the company had promised that the respondent workman would be employed in M/s. Rali India Limited and that such promise was given by the factory Manager Mr. Kukreja, however, the said promise was not honoured so far as the respondent is concerned. Mr. Chauhan very vehemently and strenuously submitted that all other co-workers came to be employed in M/s. Rali India Limited and thereafter in M/s. HMP Engineers Limited i.e. the petitioner company. He also submitted that actually it is the same establishment who has from time to time changed its names and lastly it was conducting its business and activities in the name of M/s. HMP Engineers Limited. Mr. Chauhan was at pains to submit that all other workmen were employed and the respondent workman was denied such benefit. Mr. He also submitted that actually it is the same establishment who has from time to time changed its names and lastly it was conducting its business and activities in the name of M/s. HMP Engineers Limited. Mr. Chauhan was at pains to submit that all other workmen were employed and the respondent workman was denied such benefit. Mr. Chauhan also submitted that the company did not make complete payment to the respondent workman in accordance with the terms of the VSS and the Labour Court has in clear terms recorded the conclusion that the respondent was short paid. Mr. Chauhan supported the award and submitted that since the respondent workman was assured employment and it was due to such representation that he had tendered his resignation and therefore, it was necessary that he should have been employed and in the event of default in honouring the promise, the Labour Court has rightly granted the benefit of reinstatement. Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate for the respondent workman, did not make any submission, more particularly, with regard to the observations made by the Labour Court in the award about breach of Section 25(F) and did not support the said observations. Mr. Chauhan elaborately referred to the oral evidence and some of the documents viz. notice dated 24.4.1983 and the letter of resignation dated 30.4.1983 by the respondent workman and company's letter dated 2.5.1983 accepting the respondent's obligation for VSS. 7. The respondent's claim is essentially based on two allegations namely (i) Mr. Kukreja, the then factory Manager, had promised that the respondent would be reemployed in M/s. Rali India Limited; and (ii) that though other workmen came to be employed pursuant to such promise, he was not reemployed. 8. Mr. Chauhan has taken this Court through the various documents and oral evidence, however, from any of the documents which he referred to and relied upon and/or oral evidence of the respondent and the company's witness, Mr. Chauhan could not point out even a whisper from the side of respondent that pursuant to the VSS other workmen were employed in M/s. Rali India Limited and/or subsequently continued in M/s. HMP Engineers Limited and/or such reemployment was granted to other workmen in pursuance of and as per the alleged promise and that such workmen also had, like him, accepted VSS and tendered resignation i.e. they were similarly situated on all counts. Actually, in various communications addressed by the respondent, including the notice raising the dispute, there is no statement to the said effect, leave aside any cogent evidence which would persuade this Court to believe that the other workmen who accepted the VSS and offered resignation were employed in M/s. Rali India Limited. Thus, there is no material to accept the said allegation and therefore, the said allegation has to be rejected. 9. Now, so far as the respondent's allegation that one Mr. Kukreja, the then factory Manager, had promised that the respondent would be employed in M/s. Rali India Limited, it deserves to be mentioned that except the respondent's bare allegation, there is nothing on record which would persuade this Court even to probe further, notwithstanding the limits of inquiry available at this stage and in this proceeding, into the said aspect of the evidence and dispute. 10. The respondent has, in his cross examination admitted that he had received the communication dated 2.5.1983 accepting his application for VSS and informing him to collect his dues from Account Department and that he also referred to another communication of even date i.e. 2.5.1983 wherein it was clearly mentioned that he would have no future claim of employment in the company. 11. After having made such admission during cross examination, it now does not lie in the mouth of the respondent that Mr. Kokreja had given such assurance to him and the said assurance was not honoured by the company. 12. It would not be out of place to observe that the respondent workman could not bring on record evidence of any co-worker, which he could have done so as to establish both allegations or atleast one of the two main allegations made by him viz. that any such assurance was given and that other similarly situated workmen were reemployed. 13. It would not be out of place to observe that the respondent workman could not bring on record evidence of any co-worker, which he could have done so as to establish both allegations or atleast one of the two main allegations made by him viz. that any such assurance was given and that other similarly situated workmen were reemployed. 13. This is besides the fact that when the VSS does not contain any such stipulation and when the company, through the VSS, which is the official document of the company had not made any such promise, such oral assurance, assuming that it was given, would not have any value and cannot be enforced and cannot be made base for directing reinstatement when the respondent workman had consciously and voluntarily accepted the terms of the VSS (which, as aforesaid, does not contain any stipulation that any employment in any other concern will be given) and when the claimant had, after examining the terms of the VSS, accepted it and tendered resignation, which had been duly accepted by the company and after such acceptance, payments were made. Upon conclusion of such events and stages it would not be open to the respondent workman to take a turn and pray for reinstatement. The Labour Court has without appreciating the said position, permitted itself to be misdirected and has, without any justification in law, directed reinstatement. 14. In light of the facts of the case and evidence obtaining on record and the position of law explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of WORKMEN OF NILGIRI COOPERATIVE MARKETING SOECIETY LIMITED (supra), the impugned direction does not deserve to be maintained and it deserves to be set aside. Hence, it is, accordingly, set aside. The petition is, to the said extent, allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent, however, there shall be no order as to costs in the facts of the case. 9. Before parting, it needs to be mentioned that Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate for the respondent, has made a grievance that the respondent has been short paid the amount/benefit available under VSS and various amounts such as gratuity and bonus have not been paid or even short paid. 9. Before parting, it needs to be mentioned that Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate for the respondent, has made a grievance that the respondent has been short paid the amount/benefit available under VSS and various amounts such as gratuity and bonus have not been paid or even short paid. He also referred to certain observations and findings recorded by the Labour Court in the impugned award in this context and submitted that appropriate directions to the company may be issued. Firstly, it would not be possible for this court to pass such direction in the petition preferred by the company. Secondly, as Mr. Clerk, learned advocate for the petitioner company submitted, at the material point of time, the petitioner company was before BIFR and now it is under process of winding up and that therefore, if the respondent workman has any claim, the same will have to be lodged before the appropriate forum. Hence, all that this court can, in present set of facts, observe at this stage is that it would be open to the respondent workman to raise his claim, if there is any, before the appropriate forum by way of appropriate application and the same, if and when made, may be decided by the concerned forum in accordance with law.