Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 747 (BOM)

Philips Electronics India Limited v. Workmen

2010-06-07

S.J.VAZIFDAR

body2010
JUDGMENT : S.J. Vazifdar, J. The Petitioner has challenged the order of the Industrial Tribunal, answering the Reference partly in the affirmative by granting demand No. 4 of the Respondents. By the said order, the Petitioner is directed to pay the workmen the difference in commuted amounts paid to them as lump-sum and the amount as shown in the annexure to the Award due to them under VRS-MUMBAI-2001 and the Settlement dated December 10, 2010 with eighteen percent interest from the date the amount was due till the date of realisation thereof. Respondent No. 2 is the learned Member of the Industrial Tribunal who has passed the Award impugned in the writ petition. The reference in this judgment to the Respondents is, therefore, limited to Respondent No. 1. 2. It is not necessary to refer to the various proceedings which led to the Award challenged in this writ petition. Suffice it to note that the Petitioner had raised preliminary issues regarding the maintainability of the Reference. By Award Part-I dated September 30, 2006 the Tribunal rejected the preliminary objection. The Petitioner challenged the same by filing Writ Petition No. 3110/2006. The same was dismissed by an order and judgment dated March 21, 2007. The Petitioner filed Appeal No. 336/2007 against the said judgment. The petition has been admitted, but no interim relief’s have been granted. The Division Bench directed the Industrial Tribunal to hear the entire Reference expeditiously and observed that the admission of the Appeal would in no way influence the view of the Industrial Tribunal on the merits of the case. It is in these circumstances that the Industrial Tribunal passed Award-Part II dated January 12, 2009 which is challenged in the present writ petition. 3. The Award warrants no interference. The questions raised are predominantly on facts. Even the construction of the documents which fall for consideration is based predominantly on facts, and an appreciation of the evidence. While I find no reason to interfere with the Award, I will add to the reasons furnished by the learned Member. The Award also can be upheld on a different approach to the facts. 4. It is necessary to state the facts leading to the said two documents only briefly. 5. The Industrial relations between the parties had not been cordial. There were serious differences which resulted in numerous litigations between the parties. The Award also can be upheld on a different approach to the facts. 4. It is necessary to state the facts leading to the said two documents only briefly. 5. The Industrial relations between the parties had not been cordial. There were serious differences which resulted in numerous litigations between the parties. While there was discontent amongst the employees, the management also considered these facts as an obstacle in the way of bringing about a more productive and cost-effective way of working. Fortunately, the parties decided to resolve these differences. The Petitioner found it necessary to reconstruct its operations to make its establishment commercially viable in view of the changed financial and commercial environment brought about, inter alia, by globalisation and the entry into the market of overseas competitors operating at extremely thin margins. 6(A) During the course of negotiations, there ensued a exchange of drafts containing various proposals. The main effect thereof was the offer by the Petitioner of a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) to its employees. Discussions/negotiations in this regard took place, inter alia, on November 2, 2001 The terms of the v. were minuted. Drafts were exchanged. While it is neither necessary nor relevant to refer to the terms and conditions, it is necessary to note that the draft letter that was proposed to be signed by the employees contained the statement: I also agree to opt for the VRS-MUMBAI-2001 announced by the Company. (B) Similarly, a draft MOU was also prepared on November 21, 2010. This draft also required the employees who opted for the v. to execute a letter which contained, inter alia, a statement similar to the one in the letter annexed to the draft MOU of November 2, 2010 set out above. (C) By a notice dated November 30, 2001 a meeting was convened on December 5, 2001 From the affidavit in lieu of the examination in chief of one Dinesh Keshav Malekar, the Respondent's witness, it appears that at the meeting held on December 5, 2001 the members of the union expressed their dissatisfaction, inter alia, with the quantum of compensation offered by the Petitioner. They agreed in principle to early retirement, but insisted on the compensation being enhanced. They agreed in principle to early retirement, but insisted on the compensation being enhanced. In the event of the Petitioner refusing the same, the union considered it better to refuse the settlement for early separation and to concentrate on the settlement of the two pending Charter of Demands. At this meeting the proposal to structure the v. to provide for a lump-sum payment as well as a regular monthly income was mooted. It was also submitted that the same should be arranged through a reliable third party such as the LIC or the HDFC Bank Limited. 7. This brings me to the two documents which are the centre of the present controversy. According to the Respondents, the settlement between the parties was crystallized only by a Memorandum of Settlement dated December 10, 2001 The Petitioner does not deny either the execution of this Memorandum of Settlement or the applicability thereof to the parties. According to the Petitioner, however, the settlement between the parties is contained not merely in the Memorandum of Settlement, but also in a document dated December 7, 2001, which I would refer to as the VRS-MUMBAI-2001. The Respondents deny the applicability of the VRS-MUMBAI-2001 dated December 7, 2001. In a nutshell, the dispute between the parties is this. Monthly payment is to be made by the Petitioner through the LIC for a period of either 60 months or 120 months as may be opted for by each employee. Each employee was also given the option to avail of 1/3rd thereof as lump-sum payment immediately. The dispute is whether the one-third amount is to be paid to the employees after deducting an amount on account of accelerated payment or not. Needless to state, according to the Petitioner, there had to be a deduction, whereas, according to the Respondents, the amount was to be paid without deducting any amount. 8. VRS-Mumbai-2001 dated December 7, 2001: 8(A). The scheme is applicable to all the employees of the commercial establishments of Mumbai who were on the permanent rolls of the company on November 1, 2001 and who had either completed ten years of service or forty years of age. December 27, 2001 is stipulated to be the effective date i.e. the date on which the employee was to be released from the Petitioner's services. December 27, 2001 is stipulated to be the effective date i.e. the date on which the employee was to be released from the Petitioner's services. The Scheme states that it is drawn up to effect an overall reduction in the existing strength of the employees. The Scheme clarifies that the employees opting for the same will also qualify for various other benefits such as gratuity, leave encashment, bonus, provident fund, savings in long range, saving scheme wherever applicable and benefits, if any, available under the pension schemes mentioned therein. Clauses 5, 6, 7, 8.0, 8.4, 8.8, 8.9 and 9 of the scheme read as under: 5.0. Taxes Benefits: 5.1 The Company has formulated the Scheme in accordance with the guidelines and parameters of Section 10(10C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Rule 2BA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Accordingly, the lumpsum payment under the VRS-Mumbai-2001 (PART A) will be exempt from Income Tax within the parameters of the said provisions. 6.0 Period of Operation 6.1 The Scheme will remain open for receiving applications from eligible employees between December 10, 2001 to December 14, 2001. 7.0 Procedure: 7.1 Eligible employees should make an application in the prescribed format and submitted to the Company. 7.2 An employee whose application for voluntary retirement has been accepted under the Scheme, will be informed in writing to that effect and also intimated about the date of release from the services of the Company. 7.3 An application for voluntary retirement under the Scheme, once submitted and accepted in writing, will not be allowed to be withdrawn subsequently under any circumstances. 8.0 General Conditions: 8.1 The Scheme is not applicable to any employee who has earlier availed of any lumpsum benefit under any voluntary retirement scheme or any other employer which had been approved by the Income Tax authorities within the parameters of Section 10(10C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Rule 2B A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and/or was formulated as per the guidelines therein. 8.4 The retiring employee will not be employed in another company or concern belonging to the same management. 8.8 An employee who retires under the Scheme shall have no claim whatsoever on the Company for re-employment at a later stage. 8.4 The retiring employee will not be employed in another company or concern belonging to the same management. 8.8 An employee who retires under the Scheme shall have no claim whatsoever on the Company for re-employment at a later stage. 8.9 Eligible employees who have opted for the scheme and have been released and whose accounts have been settled will have no recourse to dispute and payment received under the scheme on any ground whatsoever and they and their nominees or legal heirs shall have no right, claims or demand against the company whatsoever. Further, they will not be eligible for any compensation payable under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or any other labour legislation or any other legislation, for the time being in force. 9.0 Benefits 9.1 Lumpsum Benefit as detailed in Annexure-I, VRS-MUMBAI-2001-PART A. 9.2 Pension as detailed in Annexure-II, VRS-MUMBAI-2001-PART B. Provided that the amounts payable shall not exceed Either Three months' salary for each completed year of service (rounded of to the nearest year); Or Salary multiplied by the number of months of service remaining before his normal date of retirement." (B) Annexures I and II referred to in Clause 9 of the scheme are important and read as under: Annexure I VRS-Mumbai-2001-Part A 1. Lumpsum Benefit: 1.1 A Retiree below the age of 55 under the Scheme will receive a lumpsum which shall not exceed; Either Three Months' salary for each completed year of service (rounded off to the nearest year) Or Salary multiplied by the number of months of service remaining before his normal date of retirement. And The payment under part A will have an overall ceiling of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only). 1.2 A Retiree over the age of 55 under the Scheme will receive a lumpsum which shall not exceed his Gross salary multiplied by the remaining months of service from November 1, 2001 subject to the condition that this also does not exceed. Either Three Months' salary for each completed year of service (rounded off to the nearest year) Or Salary multiplied by the number of months of service remaining before his normal date of retirement. And The payment under part A will have an overall ceiling of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only). Annexure II VRS-Mumbai-2001-Part B 1. Either Three Months' salary for each completed year of service (rounded off to the nearest year) Or Salary multiplied by the number of months of service remaining before his normal date of retirement. And The payment under part A will have an overall ceiling of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only). Annexure II VRS-Mumbai-2001-Part B 1. Pension Benefit: In addition to the lumpsum benefit in terms of Part A (Annexure I) the Retirees under VRS-MUMBAI-2001, will also be eligible to pension benefit. 1.1 For Employees under 55 years of age on November 1, 2001 Either 60 months or 120 months as per the option exercised by them. Rs. 9670 in case of a 60 month pension or Rs. 6109 in case of a 120 month pension. 1.2 For Employees above 66 years of age on November 1, 2001 Either 60 months or 120 months as per the option exercised by them. In case of 60 months pension Rs. 9670 per month or. 021489 X (Gross Salary X Future months of service minus Part A) per month whichever is lower. In case of 120 months pension Rs. 6109 per month or. 013576 X (Gross Salary X Future months of service minus Part A) which ever is lower. 2. For providing pension benefits under Part B, the company reserves its rights to secure such pension through a group pension scheme of LIC. The Group pension scheme of LIC gives the retirees an option to commute a part (not exceeding 33 1/3%) of his pension. The commuted value of the pension will be determined by the scheme's actuary after taking into account the retiree's age, state of health and other actuarial factors including discounting. For retirees who would opt for commutation, two thirds of the individual's corpus would be used by LIC to provide annuity for the chosen term. The commuted value thus decided by the actuary and paid by LIC will be taken as final and it will not be open to the retirees to dispute this in any forum whatsoever. 3. The pension benefit to the retirees will commence from February 1, 2002. (C) The draft of the letter to be executed by an employee opting for the scheme is as under: Re: Application for Voluntary Retirement under the Company's VRS-Mumbai 2001. I have decided to take voluntary retirement from the services of the Company under the above mentioned scheme. 3. The pension benefit to the retirees will commence from February 1, 2002. (C) The draft of the letter to be executed by an employee opting for the scheme is as under: Re: Application for Voluntary Retirement under the Company's VRS-Mumbai 2001. I have decided to take voluntary retirement from the services of the Company under the above mentioned scheme. I have read and understood the terms and conditions of the voluntary retirement scheme and hereby submit my application for voluntary retirement for your kind consideration and acceptance. I further state that I have taken this decision to opt for early voluntary retirement of my own free will. I request you to pay all other benefits and legal dues including gratuity, lease encashment at an early date. Yours faithfully, (Signature) The letter actually executed by each of the employee was not as per this format, but as I will indicate later. Memorandum of Settlement Dated December 10, 2001: 9. As I noted earlier, the execution of this Memorandum of Settlement is not denied. The Petitioner, in fact, admits the applicability thereof. It only contends that the agreement between the parties was a composite one contained in the VRS-MUMBAI-2001 dated December 7, 2001 as well as the Memorandum of Settlement dated December 10, 2001. The Respondent, on the other hand, have contended that the rights of the parties are governed only by the MOS dated December 10, 2001 The following provisions of the MOU dated December 10, 2001 are relevant: (A) It is clearly understood that the benefits as detailed above are gross amounts inclusive of any benefits available under Mumbai-VRS-2001 Scheme. It will be clearly noticed that the pension amounts mentioned above are higher than the pension amounts available under Mumbai-VRS-2001. Such additional amounts of pension are in lieu of and/or for the full and final settlement of the following pending issues: (1) Pending Charters of Demands of the Union and the Notices of Change given by the management. (2) Various litigation pending in different Courts of Law between the Union and/or the employees and the Company. (3) Facilities at Vashi and Bhiwandi including employees transport and canteen no longer being required. (B) The appropriate payment of Income Tax will be the responsibility of each employee and the Company shall not be held liable at any point of time for payment of the same. (3) Facilities at Vashi and Bhiwandi including employees transport and canteen no longer being required. (B) The appropriate payment of Income Tax will be the responsibility of each employee and the Company shall not be held liable at any point of time for payment of the same. (C) All the employees will be paid their other legal dues separately on the date of retirement. (D) Both the parties agree that the objective of the new scheme is to bring about operational efficiencies through restructuring of the work force and this can be achieved only when all the employees opt for Voluntary Retirement benefits, and both the parties will conscientiously work towards this objective. (E) Both the parties agree that all the issues pertaining to all earlier and/or pending Charters of Demands and related matters stand resolved amicably and Union and its members shall not have any claim or right to agitate the matters or issues raised in their charters before any Court, Tribunal, or other judicial or quasi-judicial forum. The Union categorically reiterates and undertakes that it/the employees will not agitate or espouse any such issue in future before any forum or authority. (F) In view of the understanding reached between the parties vide Memorandum of Settlement dated December 10, 2001, both the parties agree to unconditionally withdraw all the cases filed by them in various Courts and other judicial and quasi-judicial forums as per terms and conditions agreed by the parties in the Minutes dated December 10, 2001, without any right to raise and/or reagitate the issue anytime in future. (G) This Memorandum of Settlement is applicable exclusively for Mumbai establishments and shall not form a precedent for any of the Company's other units in India. (H) This scheme will be open from December 10, 2001 till December 14, 2001. The Union agrees to collect the individual applications/consent letters/letter of Authority, from the member employees and submit the same to the management on or before December 19, 2001. (H) This scheme will be open from December 10, 2001 till December 14, 2001. The Union agrees to collect the individual applications/consent letters/letter of Authority, from the member employees and submit the same to the management on or before December 19, 2001. All employees will be relieved on December 27, 2001 after the close of office hours and thus the employer-employee relationship would come to an end as of December 27, 2001 (I) Management continues to reserve its right to promote any of the bargainable staff, who may not opt for the scheme, to management cadre and consequently transfer them to its units outside Mumbai establishments as per its business requirements and exigencies as and when necessary. (J) This Memorandum of Settlement shall not be effective until the members of the Union have opted for the new Scheme and are made payments. (K) This Memorandum of Settlement covers and is applicable only to the permanent bargainable employees who are on the rolls of the Company on the date of signing of this Memorandum of Settlement. (L) This Memorandum of Settlement dated December 10, 2001 is applicable to those workmen who are ready and willing to accept and abide by the terms and conditions of the Memorandum of Settlement dated December 10, 2001 and individually signify such acceptance by giving a declaration in writing as per Annexure "A." (M) The Union being a recognized union under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, the management confirms that, it will, as per the existing practice of check-off system for the Union for deductions of the Union dues arising out of the Memorandum of Settlement and payments of the same to the Union, deduct from the payment made to the employees under this Memorandum of Settlement dated December 10, 2001 as per the written authorization given by the employees. 10. It is necessary now to see the manner in which the parties acted thereafter. (A) As admitted by the Petitioner in paragraph 11 of the writ petition, the employees who opted for the scheme addressed letters to the Petitioner in the following terms: The General Manager - Personnel Philips India Limited Mumbai. Dear Sir, I have read/I have been explained the terms & conditions of the Settlement dated December 10, 2001. I am willing to abide by the same and hence the benefits under this Settlement be paid to me. Dear Sir, I have read/I have been explained the terms & conditions of the Settlement dated December 10, 2001. I am willing to abide by the same and hence the benefits under this Settlement be paid to me. I also agree to opt for the VRS-MUMBAI-2001 announced by the Company. (B) In response to the letters from the employees, the Petitioner addressed relieving letters. It is, however, important to note the manner in which the text of the relieving letters 'was formulated is in paragraph 11 of the writ petition itself. (i) On December 18, 2001 the Petitioner had forwarded a draft of the proposed relieving letter to the President of the Respondent-union for his perusal/comments, if any. The relieving letter was to be issued by the Petitioner to the concerned employees who had opted for the scheme. The following part of the draft of the relieving letter dated December 18, 2001 is important and reads as under: Sub: Voluntary Retirement Under Mumbai VRS-2001 Dear Sir/Madam, With reference to your letter dated December 10, 2001 requesting for Voluntary Retirement under the Company's Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2001-MUMBAI VRS-2001, We confirm the Company's acceptance of your request. You will be relieved from the services of the Company after close of business hours on December 27, 2001. (ii) The President of the union, suggested a change endorsed at the foot of the draft which reads as under: As Per the Terms and conditions of the Settlement dated December 10, 2001 signed by and between the Company and Philips Empl. Union Mumbai. (C) Accordingly, the relieving letters actually addressed by the Petitioner to each of the employees are as under: Sub: Voluntary Retirement under Mumbai VRS-2001 Dear Sir, With reference to your application dated December 10, 2001 requesting for Voluntary Retirement under the Company's Retirement Scheme 2001-MUMBAI VRS-2001, as per the terms and conditions of the settlement dated December 10, 2001 signed by and between the Company and Philips Employee's Union, Mumbai, we confirm the Company's acceptance of your request. You will be relieved from the services of the Company after close of business hours on December 27, 2001. 11. You will be relieved from the services of the Company after close of business hours on December 27, 2001. 11. The significant difference in the draft submitted by the Petitioner dated December 18, 2001 and the final letter addressed by the Petitioner is the addition of the words "as per the terms and conditions of the settlement dated December 10, 2001 signed by and between the company and Philips Employees Union, Mumbai." 12. Mr. Naik submitted that VRS-Mumbai-2001 dated December 7, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as "the VRS") and the Memorandum of Settlement dated December 10, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as "the MOS") together constitute a composite scheme governing the rights of the parties. He submitted that the MOS was not a separate independent agreement. In other words, he submitted that the v. did not cease to have effect upon the execution of the MOS. 13. Mr. Naik relied upon the letter signed by the employees accepting the scheme. He emphasized the statement: "I also agree to opt for the VRS-Mumbai-2001 announced by the company." The letter, which I have set out earlier, initially states that the employees had been explained the terms and conditions of the settlement dated December 10, 2001 and that they were willing to abide by the same. Mr. Naik submitted that the term "also" indicated that the v. and the MOS were applicable to the parties. 14. The argument is attractive at first blush. However, considered along with all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to agree with Mr. Naik's submission. The statement by itself does not conclude the case. Even the MO Us prior to the v. and the MOS had the identical statement. I had noted the same while referring to the MO Us dated November 2, 2001 and November 21, 2001. Each of them required the employees to address a letter accepting the scheme. Each of the letters had the identical statement viz.: "I also agree to opt for the VRS-Mumbai-2001 announced by the company." These sentences were, therefore, there even prior to the VRS-Mumbai-2001 of December 7, 2001. The sentence appears, therefore, merely to have been carried forward. Further if even otherwise the v. cannot be held to apply, the mere existence of this sentence would not conclude the matter in the Petitioner's favour. 15. Mr. The sentence appears, therefore, merely to have been carried forward. Further if even otherwise the v. cannot be held to apply, the mere existence of this sentence would not conclude the matter in the Petitioner's favour. 15. Mr. Naik also relied upon the fact that in the letter of acceptance issued by the company to each of the employees who opted for the settlement the subject reads: "Sub: Voluntary Retirement Under Mumbai-VRS-2001." 16. That, however, would not be conclusive of the matter either. In fact, the manner in which the text of the letter was finalized militates against Mr. Naik's submission. It is important to recall that the company had earlier sent a draft of the letter of acceptance dated December 18, 2001 to be issued by it to the union which stated: With reference to your letter dated December 10, 2001, requesting for voluntary retirement under the Company's Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2001 Mumbai VRS-2001, we confirm the company's acceptance of your request. The union representative returned the draft with the endorsement that the letter should state that the retirement was as per the terms and conditions of the settlement dated December 10, 2001 by and between the company and the union. Accordingly, the final letter of acceptance read: With reference to your application dated December 10, 2001 requesting for Voluntary Retirement under the company's Retirement Scheme 2001- MUMBAI-VRS-2001, as per the terms and conditions of the settlement dated December 10, 2001 signed by and between the company and Philips Employees Union, Mumbai we confirm the company's acceptance of your request. There is no magic in the term 'Voluntary Retirement Scheme'. Even the Memorandum of Settlement is a scheme for voluntary retirement. Thus, the title or the nomenclature of the documents is not decisive at all. In other words, merely because the words "'Mumbai-VRS-2001" are used, it would not establish that the v. of December 7, 2001 continued to apply to the parties. The final letter of acceptance dated December 19, 2001 in fact, militates against Mr. Naik's submission. This is clear from the fact that the words are "Company's Retirement Scheme 2001-Mumbai-VRS-2001, as per the terms and conditions of the settlement dated 10th December 2001....." It must be noted that the statement is a continuous one. If Mr. The final letter of acceptance dated December 19, 2001 in fact, militates against Mr. Naik's submission. This is clear from the fact that the words are "Company's Retirement Scheme 2001-Mumbai-VRS-2001, as per the terms and conditions of the settlement dated 10th December 2001....." It must be noted that the statement is a continuous one. If Mr. Naik's submission was correct after the words "Company's Retirement Scheme 2001 -Mumbai-VRS" would have appeared the word "and." This may have indicated that the v. and the MOS govern the rights of the parties. The absence of the word "and" indicates that the parties considered the Memorandum of Settlement dated December 10, 2001 itself to be a scheme for the voluntary retirement of the Petitioner's employees. 17. The mere fact that the order of reference u/s 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act refers to "VRS-Mumbai-2001" is of no consequence. There was no adjudication by the Government on this issue. The expression was not used upon a consideration of the present question. Similarly, the fact that the impugned order uses the expression in certain places is also of no consequences. 18. Mr. Naik relied upon a letter dated April 10, 2002. He tendered the letter across the bar. He relied upon the first sentence of paragraph 2 of internal page 10 of the letter wherein the Respondent stated: The Management, after implementation of the VRS-Mumbai- 2001, requested us to collect the cheques from LIC ostensibly on the ground that the same can be handed over to the employees immediately. Relying upon this sentence, he contended that the Respondent had itself agreed that the VRS-Mumbai-2001 was binding between the parties. 19. As I have noted earlier, the mere reference to VRS-Mumbai- 2001 does not establish that the said v. dated December 7, 2001 was binding between the parties. The term/expression has been used in a general sense and not indicative of applicability of the v. dated December 7, 2001 as modified by or together with the settlement dated December 10, 2001. There is no magic in the expression "Voluntary Retirement Scheme" or in the abbreviated form thereof, "VRS." The Memorandum of Settlement dated December 10, 2001 is also a scheme for a voluntary early retirement. Early retirement was the substance of the entire matter. There is nothing incongruous about referring to the MOS dated December 10, 2001 also as a v. Scheme. 20. Early retirement was the substance of the entire matter. There is nothing incongruous about referring to the MOS dated December 10, 2001 also as a v. Scheme. 20. Annexure-I of the v. stipulates that the lump-sum benefit to the retirees will have an overall ceiling of Rs. 5,00,000/-. This stipulation applies to retirees below the age of fifty-five as well as those over the age of fifty-five. Mr. Naik submitted that this ceiling was stipulated in view of the provisions of the Income Tax Act as lump-sum payment upto Rs. 5,00,000/- is tax-free. He submitted that the benefit of this provision has been availed of by the employees. He further submitted that there is no clause to this effect in the Memorandum of Settlement. Despite the same, benefits under this clause have been availed of by the employees which establishes the case that the; v. formed a part of the settlement between the parties. 21. The submission is not well founded. The MOS also has a similar stipulation. Clause (A)(1) under the caption "BENEFITS" also stipulates that the employees who have not attained the age of fifty five years as on November 1, 2001 will be entitled to salary for the balance number of months from November; 1, 2001 till reaching the age of sixty years, subject to a maximum of Rs. 5,00,000/-. An identical stipulation is provided for under paragraph (B)(1) under the same caption "BENEFITS." The mere fact that clause May 1, 2010 of the v. refers to the provision of Section 10(10C) of the Income Tax Act makes no difference. If the payment is exempt u/s 10(10C), the Assessee would be entitled to the same. If not, the Assessee would not be entitled to the same. The mere fact that parties refer to the provisions of the Income- Tax Act would not be binding upon the Income Tax, authorities. In other words, if the scheme/transaction between the parties falls within the ambit of Section 10(10C) they would be entitled to the benefits thereof irrespective of any declaration/statement by the parties regarding the same. 22. Mr. Naik then relied upon clause August 2, 2010, August 3, 2010 and August 8, 2010 of the v. These clauses, according to him, refer to the retirement by the employees as a concept from the services of the Petitioner. Admittedly, the concerned employees did retire. 22. Mr. Naik then relied upon clause August 2, 2010, August 3, 2010 and August 8, 2010 of the v. These clauses, according to him, refer to the retirement by the employees as a concept from the services of the Petitioner. Admittedly, the concerned employees did retire. According to him, the MOS does not contain similar clauses. Thus, the retirement, according to him, was only under the v. and not the MOS. Consequently, he submitted the v. is also binding between the parties. 23. I do not agree. The MOS also contains various clauses which not merely indicate, but establish the cessation of the employer-employee relationship as well as the fact of the concerned employees retiring from the services of the Petitioner. Clause H under the caption Other Terms And Conditions of the MOS states that all the employees will be relieved on December 27, 2001 after close of office hours. Thus, the employer-employee relationship would come to an end as of December 27, 2001 The doubt, if any, is removed by a reference to clause C under the same caption which states: "All the employees will be paid their other legal dues separately on the date of retirement." (emphasis supplied). Further clause D, also under the same caption, expressly refers to voluntary retirement benefits. 24. Mr. Naik submitted that clause D under the caption Benefits of the MOS would also apply to clause A under the same caption. It is difficult to accept this submission for clause D expressly confines the provisions thereof to clause B(2). Clause B pertains to those employees who had attained the age of 55 years as on November 1, 2001 whereas clause A pertains to those employees who had not attained the age of 55 years as on November 1, 2001. Mr. Naik's submission would involve re-writing the contract, which is not permissible. 25. The Respondent-union examined one witness viz. the Organization Secretary one Dinesh Keshav Malekar. The Petitioner examined two witnesses viz. the head of its Retail Estate & Facilities Management one Sharad Saharasrabudhe and one Naresh Harkisandas Thanawala who is stated to have provided actuarial services in the matter. 26. Before considering the evidence led by the parties, it is important to note a few things. Firstly, the Petitioner's obligation to pay the monthly emoluments under the MOS does not cease upon the death of an employee. 26. Before considering the evidence led by the parties, it is important to note a few things. Firstly, the Petitioner's obligation to pay the monthly emoluments under the MOS does not cease upon the death of an employee. The Petitioner has not established any formula or basis for reducing the 33 1/3rd percent lump-sum amount in the event of an employee exercising an option to avail of the same. The Petitioner has, in fact, not even established the basis on which the alleged reduction was carried out. The actuary calculated the reduction on a basis which is not merely established, but admitted to be totally erroneous. The scheme on which the actuary worked was not even the scheme propounded by the parties. 27. The Petitioner's witness in paragraph 57 of his evidence stated that u/s 10(10A) of the Income Tax Act, the Petitioner was required to ensure that under the pension mode of payments, the commuted value of pension "would be determined having regard to the age of the recipient, the state of his health, the rate of interest and officially recognised tables of mortality etc......" As I noted earlier, the age of the recipient in the present case is totally irrelevant for the Petitioner was bound to pay the installments even after the death of any employee. As 1 will shortly demonstrate, the other witness examined by the Petitioner viz. the actuary determined the commuted value on the basis that the Petitioner's liability to pay installments would cease upon the death of the employee. Thus, the entire basis of the commutation, even assuming it was permissible, was erroneous. 28. In paragraph 61 of his evidence, the Petitioner's witness stated that the MOS would supplement the v. "as there were pending cases to be settled in view of the voluntary retirement." Paragraph 61 of the evidence of the Petitioner's witness seeks to furnish an explanation as to why the MOS supplements the v. Paragraph 61 reads as under: 61. I state that accordingly a Memorandum of Settlement dt. December 10, 2001 was signed on December 8, 2001 which would supplement the provisions of the v. Mumbai 2001 Scheme, as there were pending cases to be settled in view of the voluntary retirement. I state that accordingly a Memorandum of Settlement dt. December 10, 2001 was signed on December 8, 2001 which would supplement the provisions of the v. Mumbai 2001 Scheme, as there were pending cases to be settled in view of the voluntary retirement. It was also mutually agreed in the Memorandum of Settlement itself that the employees would opt for v. Mumbai 2001 Scheme and also accept the benefits under the Memorandum of Settlement dated December 10, 2001, as the benefits under v. Mumbai 2001 Scheme were based on the pay out of Rs. 9.50 lacs as against the higher benefits from the payout of Rs. 14.50 lacs. The objective of Memorandum of Settlement was only for payment of enhanced amounts, settlement of cases, payment towards contribution to the Union Donation and per se the Memorandum of Settlement could not be treated as voluntary retirement scheme as such, in the absence of any of the requirements of Section 10(10C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the rules made there under. I further state since the v. Mumbai 2001 scheme provided for all the requirements pursuant to Income Tax Act, 1961 especially Section 10(10A) and Section 10(10C), the Memorandum of Settlement was for other specific purposes stated above, these specific mandatory requirements under Income Tax Act were not stated in the Memorandum of Settlement, so that there would not be any confusion among the employees and in any case both would be read together as it was mutually agreed that employees interested in voluntary retirement were required to opt for v. Mumbai 2001 scheme in addition to agreeing to accept the benefits under the Memorandum of Settlement. 29. The suggestion that the MOS was required as there were pending cases to be settled in view of the voluntary retirement is unsustainable. The provisions of the MOS indeed do provide for the same, but a reading of the MOS in its entirety does not even remotely indicate that it was necessary for this reason for the parties to execute a detailed exhaustive MOS which would operate as a settlement by itself. It is important to note in this regard that the provisions of the v. dated December 7, 2001 also adequately settled all the pending issues between the parties. It is important to note in this regard that the provisions of the v. dated December 7, 2001 also adequately settled all the pending issues between the parties. This is clear from clauses August 8, 2010 and August 9, 2010 of the v. The effect thereof was the same as clause F of the MOS. Even assuming that clauses August 8, 2010 and August 9, 2010 were not adequate to provide for the intentions of the parties as contained in clause F of the MOS, all that was required was a simple clarification to that effect without the necessity of the parties executing an MOS of this nature. This argument is further belied by the fact that whereas certain clauses in the MOS are similar to those in the VRS, certain clauses in the two documents are different. The nature of the two documents indicates that the MOS was the final agreement between the parties and was not subject to the provisions of the v. The MOS was a complete agreement in itself. 30. If I am correct in this regard, the entire basis of reducing the 33 1/3 percent amount would be unsustainable. This is for the obvious reason that Clause 2 of Annexure-II in the v. which provides for the computation of the commuted value is absent in the MOS. It is obviously for this reason that the Petitioner submitted that the provisions of the v. are also applicable to the settlement between the parties. Having come to the conclusion that the v. does not apply to the parties, it necessarily follows that by the MOS, the intention of the parties was that there would be no reduction in the 33 1/3rd percent lump-sum payment. 31. The Respondents' case in this regard is entirely supported by the evidence of the Petitioner's witnesses themselves. (A) In his cross-examination (paragraph 93), the Petitioner's witness stated: The role of the company after purchase of the annuity is to certify various documents in case of an unfortunate death of a beneficiary so that his/her nominee continues to get the pension. Thus, even the Petitioner's witness admitted in his evidence that the liability of the Petitioner to pay the installments continues even after the death of the employee. Thus, even the Petitioner's witness admitted in his evidence that the liability of the Petitioner to pay the installments continues even after the death of the employee. (B) In paragraph 19 of his evidence, the actuary expressly admitted that if after the death of an employee pension is to continue, age is not a relevant factor at all and cannot be considered. The evidence establishes that factors such as the age and health of the employees are irrelevant as payments are to continue even after the death of an employee. 32. The evidence establishes conclusively that despite the same, the Petitioner furnished the actuary material to guage the state of health of the employees, the actuary took the same into consideration while making his calculations, made the calculations on the basis that pension is to stop upon the death of the employee and that he did so as he was not even aware that under the scheme payments were to continue after the death of an employee. 33. Obviously with a view to establishing that the aspect of life expectancy was properly considered, the Petitioner's witness submitted that the leave records of the employees had been furnished to the actuary. 34. In paragraph 62 of his evidence, the Petitioner's witness stated: .... The said commuted amount was arrived at by the actuary in accordance with the guidelines of Section 10(10A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, especially health conditions and age of the employees. 35. The actuary examined by the Petitioner admitted that mortality tables are required to be considered only if benefits are to be altered after the death of the workman. Curiously, he was not even aware whether the pension was to be continued even after the death of the workman. He admitted that it is for this reason that he considered the mortality tables in his calculation, called upon the company to produce the leave reports of the concerned employees for the previous six months and took the same into consideration while ascertaining the state of health of the employees. What is even more important is the statement of the actuary that his calculations were based on the assumption that the pension would stop upon the death of the workman before the stipulated period of 60 or 120 months. What is even more important is the statement of the actuary that his calculations were based on the assumption that the pension would stop upon the death of the workman before the stipulated period of 60 or 120 months. As I have noted earlier, there is no dispute that the Petitioner was bound to pay the installments of 60 or 120 months even after the death of an employee. The following cross-examination of the actuary is important: 11. Q. Would the Pension be different if it were for fixed period irrespective of the death of the workman or if it were to stop on the death of the workman? Ans: Pension amount is fixed under the scheme and will not change, however, the commuted value will be different depending on whether the pension is payable for a fixed term or ceasing on death. (emphasis supplied) 36. Thus, once again, a factor of crucial importance was applied wrongly. I do not for a moment suggest that the actuary did so wrongly. What is important to note is that he was called upon to proceed on an entirely erroneous basis which had a significant impact upon the calculations even assuming that the Petitioner was entitled to reduce the amount of the lump-sum payment. That this was a factor which would have made a crucial difference is admitted by the actuary in paragraph 11 of his evidence where he confirmed that the commuted value will be different depending on whether the pension is payable for a fixed term or whether it ceases upon the death of a workman. 37. Two important aspects emerge from the evidence of the actuary. Firstly and more important, the evidence of the Petitioner's witnesses itself establishes that the lump-sum payment was not liable to be reduced. Secondly, even assuming that the lump-sum payment was liable to be reduced, the basis on which it was reduced was admittedly erroneous. 38. Further, the actuary admitted that the scheme prepared by him was entirely different from the scheme that operates between the parties even assuming that the v. applies. Thus, the entire basis was erroneous. In his cross-examination, the actuary stated: I have seen exhibit C 25 scheme submitted by the company for the first time in the Court. 38. Further, the actuary admitted that the scheme prepared by him was entirely different from the scheme that operates between the parties even assuming that the v. applies. Thus, the entire basis was erroneous. In his cross-examination, the actuary stated: I have seen exhibit C 25 scheme submitted by the company for the first time in the Court. The scheme of the company submitted to the Court, is totally different than the scheme prepared and submitted to the company by me. It is true that the certificate which I have issued to the company are not based on as per the scheme of the company submitted in the Court. As per certificate, I have mentioned the entitlement of pension by individual employee as per the scheme prepared by me. The actuary stated that he had prepared the v. Scheme. In paragraph 9 he stated that he saw the v. Scheme submitted by the company for the first time only in the Court. What is of vital importance is that he further stated that the scheme of the company submitted to the Court was totally different from the scheme prepared and submitted to the company by him and that the certificates issued by him to the company were not based on the scheme of the company submitted in the Court. He further added that in his certificate he had mentioned the entitlement of pension of individual employees as per the scheme prepared by him. The actuary stated in paragraph 20 that he had not informed the Petitioner about the actuarial rates applied by him. Thus, the company and the actuary were not even ad-idem. The calculations by the actuary were not as per the settlement between the parties even assuming that the v. applied. 39. In his cross-examination, the Petitioner's witness admitted that the discounting factors had not been communicated to the employees, but contended that the union was aware of the same and that the union had informed the individual employees thereof (paragraphs 89 and 90 of the evidence of the Petitioner's witness). Paragraph 99 of the notes of evidence of this witness establishes that the workers had not been informed as to how much would be reduced. The witness stated that the deduction for each workmen was calculated by the actuary, but that the Petitioner had not seen the working of the actuary. Paragraph 99 of the notes of evidence of this witness establishes that the workers had not been informed as to how much would be reduced. The witness stated that the deduction for each workmen was calculated by the actuary, but that the Petitioner had not seen the working of the actuary. He stated that the actuary had informed the company that he had applied a discounting rate of "ten to eleven percent" and that the actuary had informed the union of the same. He admitted that the Petitioner had not informed the workmen the extent of the reduction. What is important is that the witness admitted in paragraph 104 that the actuary did not explain to anybody in the company i.e. the Petitioner "how the factors were to be applied." He volunteered, however, that the actuary informed him that the actuarial calculation was explained to the union leader. He admitted that there was no documentary evidence to substantiate the same. The witness also admitted that there was no proof on record to show how the age and duration of service were considered. 40. Had I come to the conclusion that the parties herein had decided the basis of reduction of the lump-sum amount but that the actuary had calculated the same on an erroneous basis, I would have directed him to recalculate the same in accordance with the agreement. To my mind, however, the errors and the conduct of parties, in fact, establishes the Respondents' case that the 33 1/3rd of the lump-sum amount was not liable to be reduced. 41. It is impossible to believe that with parties such as these, a crucial aspect of commutation by reduction in the lump-sum amount would have been handled so haphazardly. The Court would be justified in presuming that parties, such as these, would deal with such an aspect with utmost care and only after the necessary deliberations and negotiations in that regard. I find it difficult to believe that the basis of commutation by reduction would not have been discussed in detail and arrived at between the parties. The evidence does not merely establish that the actuary erred in the computation. The error is of such a gross nature as to establish the Respondent-union's case that, in fact, the parties had agreed not to reduce the lump-sum benefit to any extent and in any manner. The evidence does not merely establish that the actuary erred in the computation. The error is of such a gross nature as to establish the Respondent-union's case that, in fact, the parties had agreed not to reduce the lump-sum benefit to any extent and in any manner. Had it been otherwise, the actuary would have been given the parameters, especially the rate of reduction. It is impossible to believe that this rate also would have been left to the actuary without either party having anything whatsoever to say about it. Further, the actuary admittedly took into consideration the age and the health of the employees which, as I have already demonstrated, was totally erroneous as the installments were not to stop upon the death of an employee. Thus, had the intention been to reduce the lump-sum benefits, surely the Petitioner would have informed the actuary that the same ought not to be done taking into consideration these irrelevant factors which were admittedly supplied to the actuary by the Petitioner. This included the health records as stated by the Petitioner's witness. 42. The evidence also discloses the fact that the scheme formulated by the actuary was entirely different from the Petitioner's scheme. This is not merely a gross error or misunderstanding between the Petitioner and the actuary. The extent and the nature of this error indicates that commutation by reduction of the lump-sum payment was not contemplated by the Petitioner and, therefore, nothing further was done in accordance with any alleged understanding in this regard. 43. The v. is dated December 7, 2001 Under Clause 2 of Annexure-II thereto, the actuary was entitled to reduce the amount. The actuary was obviously approached prior to the Memorandum of Settlement dated December 10, 2001 The Memorandum of Settlement does not contain any such clause. The facts of the case establish that the clause was intentionally deleted in the Memorandum of Settlement. 44. Mr. Naik submitted that on pure arithmetic's, the Respondents' submission is illogical and absurd. For instance, if an employee opted for the 60 month installment, the 33 1/3rd percent lump-sum amount would be Rs. 4,08,300/-, whereas if he opted for the 120 months installments, the 33 l/3rd percent lump-sum amount would be Rs. 5,15,920/-. According to him, therefore, it was obvious that any employee would choose the 120 installments as he would then avail of a substantially larger lump-sum payment. 45. 4,08,300/-, whereas if he opted for the 120 months installments, the 33 l/3rd percent lump-sum amount would be Rs. 5,15,920/-. According to him, therefore, it was obvious that any employee would choose the 120 installments as he would then avail of a substantially larger lump-sum payment. 45. I will assume that a prudent person would opt for 120 months installments as suggested by Mr. Naik as that would entitle him to a sum of about Rs. 1,08,000/- more towards the lump-sum payment. It would be incorrect, however, to test the approach of an employee on the basis of a professional or even a regular investor. I do not consider it improbable for an employee, despite the same, to opt for the 60 month installment merely because he gets a little less as a lump-sum payment. Depending upon the circumstances of an employee, it is possible that he would opt for the 60 month installments as that entitles him to a larger per month income/installment of the relative proportion of Rs. 20,415/- as against the relative proportion of Rs. 12,898/- in the 120 month option. There is no absolute formula or approach as in the case of an investor. Indeed, a party may not even opt for the lump-sum payment depending upon the circumstances in which he finds himself. An employee may well take the safer option of merely receiving a fixed amount per month. 46. I must note here that both the learned Counsel stated that they do not desire to speak to the minutes of the order dated November 11, 2009 passed by R.S. MOHITE, J. Mr. Shaikh stated that it is not the Respondents' grievance that the l/3rd of Rs. 9,50,000/- was not paid. Mr. Naik, on the other hand, stated that it is not every employee who is entitled to Rs. 9,50,000/-. I have, therefore, proceeded without requiring the parties to speak to the minutes of the said order. 47. By a letter dated March 11, 2002 the Petitioner stated as follows: During the process of Negotiation and even after signing the Memorandum of Understanding which culminated into the Memorandum of Settlement dated December 10, 2001, you had participated in all the discussion we had with the officials of LIC from day one. 47. By a letter dated March 11, 2002 the Petitioner stated as follows: During the process of Negotiation and even after signing the Memorandum of Understanding which culminated into the Memorandum of Settlement dated December 10, 2001, you had participated in all the discussion we had with the officials of LIC from day one. The Petitioner admitted that negotiations culminated in the MOS dated December 10, 2001 and not in the v. dated December 7, 2001 or a composite arrangement embodied in the v. and the MOS. It was, however, contended that the commuted amount paid to the employees by LIC was based on the actual calculations done by the actuary with whom the union had interacted. That the actuary had made the calculations is another matter altogether. The same, in any event, is on an entirely erroneous basis. 48. Mr. Shaikh's submission that the MOS is not a scheme u/s 10(10A) of the Income Tax Act is well founded. Mr. Naik submitted that the Petitioner's case is that the same falls u/s 10(10A)(ii)(b). Section 10(10A) of the Income Tax Act reads as under: Section 10(10A)(i) any payment in commutation of pension received under the Civil Pensions (Commutation) Rules of the Central Government or under any similar scheme applicable (to the members of the civil services of the Union or holders of posts connected with defence or of civil posts under the Union (such members or holders being persons not governed by the said Rules) or to the members of the all-India services or to the members of the defence services or to the members of the civil services of a State or holders of civil posts under a State or to the employees of a local authority) or a corporation established by a Central, State or Provincial Act); (ii) any payment in commutation of pension received under any scheme of any other employer, to the extent it does not exceed -- (a) in a case where the employee receives any gratuity, the commuted value of one-third of the pension which he is normally entitled to receive, and (b) in any other case, the commuted value of one-half of such pension. such commuted value being determined having regard to the age of the recipient, the state of his health, the rate of interest and officially recognised tables of mortality; 39(***) 40[(iii) any payment in commutation of pension received from a fund under Clause (23AAB);) It is established from what is stated earlier that the commuted value was not to be determined having regard to the age of the recipient/employee as the liability of the Petitioner to pay the installments does not cease upon the death of the employee. The scheme, therefore, does not fall within the ambit of Section 10(10A). Nor does it, for that matter, fall within the ambit of Section 10(10C) which is the provision referred to in the v. dated December 7, 2001. A scheme u/s 10(10C) must be in accordance with the rules viz. Rule 2B(A). In any event, there is nothing to indicate that the actuary calculated the amounts in accordance with the provisions of Section 10(10A) or Section 10(10C) of the Income Tax Act. Further, admittedly the scheme that the actuary worked on was not the same as the said scheme. 49. Mr. Naik submitted that there is no finding regarding the existence or otherwise of the discounting factor. The same, therefore, is not a ground/aspect that can be relied upon by the Respondents to support the impugned order. He submitted that the terms of reference did not include the same. Mr. Naik relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Sitaram Vishnu Shirodkar Vs. The Administrator, Government of Goa and others, (1985) 1 LLJ 480 : (1984) MhLj 566. 50. I do not agree. Item 4 of the Reference reads as under: 4. In alternative to demand No. 1 and 2 above to pay the workmen difference in commuted amounts paid to them as lump sum and amount equivalent to 1/3rd of the total amount due to them under v. Mumbai 2001 and/or difference in the monthly payment with penal interest thereon @ 21% from the date of short payment. The Reference is wide enough to entitle the Respondent-union to rely upon this factor. In other words, it is wide enough to entitle the Respondents to contend that there was no discounting factor agreed upon as this is an aspect which relates to the entitlement to reduce the lump-sum amount. The Reference is wide enough to entitle the Respondent-union to rely upon this factor. In other words, it is wide enough to entitle the Respondents to contend that there was no discounting factor agreed upon as this is an aspect which relates to the entitlement to reduce the lump-sum amount. It is a piece of evidence relating to the lis between the parties as to whether the lump-sum amount could be reduced or not. It is important to draw a distinction here. The dispute is not as to whether the quantum of reduction was correctly arrived at or not. The dispute relates to the very right to discount. Had the dispute been as to whether the factors in Section 10(10A) of the Income Tax Act been applied or not or whether Clause 2 of Annexure II was validly applied or not, Mr. Naik's submission may have had some force. But, in this case, the very right to deduct was the main dispute. It is based solely or essentially thereon that the relief’s were claimed. Therefore, whether the discounting was at all permissible as per Clause 2 of Annexure II of the v. dated December 7, 2001 read with Section 10A is an important piece of evidence to indicate whether or not there was to be a deduction. This, therefore, was, to say the least, an ancillary or incidental matter relevant to Item 4 of the Reference. 51. Mr. Naik submitted that there is nothing in Clause 2 of the v. that obliged the actuary to disclose the discounting factor and the mode of calculation of the reduced sum. He submitted that there was a blanket consent on the part of both the parties entitling the actuary to calculate/compute the same. The same, therefore, he stated, cannot be challenged. 52. The submission is not well founded. It is established beyond doubt in the evidence that the actuary not only did not take the relevant factors into account, but in fact, took totally irrelevant factors into consideration. It is further established that the actuary was not even furnished with the relevant material and was furnished with irrelevant material. It is established that the actuary worked on his own scheme and not on the scheme of the Petitioner. Thus, his computation was entirely erroneous. It is further established that the actuary was not even furnished with the relevant material and was furnished with irrelevant material. It is established that the actuary worked on his own scheme and not on the scheme of the Petitioner. Thus, his computation was entirely erroneous. As I have indicated earlier, the error is of such a nature as to indicate that upon the execution of the MOS, the parties had agreed that there was, in fact, to be no reduction in the lump-sum amount. 53. The use of the term "commute" in the MOS is not conclusive of the matter either way. The learned Member has set out the various definitions of the terms "commute" and "commutation." The term does not necessarily involve a reduction. For instance, the MERRIAM WEBSTER COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY, 10th Edition defines "commutation" as exchange, trade, replacement such as substitution of one form of payment for another. The OXFORD ADVANCED LEARNED DICTIONARY OF CURRENT ENGLISH defines the term "commutation" as exchange one thing (especially one kind of payment) for another. Even assuming that the term "commute" ordinarily implies a reduction, in the facts of the present case, for the reasons I have already enumerated, there was no intention on the part of the parties that the Petitioner was entitled to reduce any amount while paying the 33 1/3rd lump-sum amount. 54. Mr. Shaikh submitted that the v. of December 7, 2001 was actually fraudulently brought into existence only after the MOS dated December 10, 2001. Considering what 1 have held earlier, it is not necessary to deal with this aspect. 55. Mr. Naik expressed an apprehension that the Respondents seek not only the lump-sum amount without deduction, but also seek to retain the monthly pension amount as it stands viz. Rs. 12,898/- for 120 months and Rs. 20,415/- for 60 months. Mr. Shaikh fairly stated that this was not so. If the option of receiving a lump-sum amount is exercised, the installments would stand reduced proportionately. 56. In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed with costs. The costs, fixed at Rs. 10,000/-, shall be paid on or before August 31, 2010. Rule stands discharged.