Judgment : K. Kalyanasundaram, J. 1. Challenging the order dated 17.8.2011 made in W.P.No.11819 of 2010, directing the appellant herein to pay Rs.1,80,000/-towards VRS amount to the second respondent herein, this writ appeal is filed. 2. The brief facts are that the second respondent/Mr.A.Jayaraj joined the service of the appellant on 26.6.1985 as a casual workman and his service was confirmed on 01.04.1989. During the year 2003, the appellant put up a Voluntary Retirement Scheme. On 18.8.2003, the second respondent opted to leave the service of the appellant in terms of Voluntary Retirement Scheme after completing 18 years of service and he was relieved on 30.9.2003. The appellant computed 14 years service of the second respondent and paid a sum of Rs.2,48,190/-as VRS amount. In the year 2006, the second respondent filed G.A.No.270 of 2005 before the Controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, claiming reckoning of service from 26.6.1985 and the same was allowed. Subsequently, the second respondent filed a Claim Petition in C.P.No.82 of 2007 under Section 33(C)(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, to compute his four years service and claimed Rs.1,80,000/-as due and payable to him. The Labour Court, by order dated 23.2.2010 allowed the claim petition along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 3. Aggrieved by the said order of the Labour Court, the appellant filed a writ petition contending that the second respondent opted to leave the service of the appellant in terms of VRS scheme, and in the receipt he had given an undertaking that he will not claim any due from the appellant. The appellant further contended that 'employer' and 'employee' relationship extinguished immediately after the second respondent availed the VRS Scheme and left the service and in view of the undertaking in the stamped receipt, second respondent is estopped from filing the claim petition. 4. The learned single Judge held that the notice containing the terms of VRS Scheme does not refer to the service rendered only after confirmation and not before, and if the employer wants to offer the amount towards VRS scheme for every completed year of service, they should have mentioned it specifically in their offer. The learned single Judge further held that there is no dispute with regard to the length of service as evidenced by the order passed by the Gratuity authority and the letter sent by the Provident Fund Department. The learned single Judge further held that there is no dispute with regard to the length of service as evidenced by the order passed by the Gratuity authority and the letter sent by the Provident Fund Department. Since there is no specific bar from counting the entire length of service, the Labour Court had correctly counted the entire service of the second respondent and allowed the application. In view of the above findings, the learned single Judge found that the order of the Labour Court in computing the payment of Rs.1,80,000/- was in order. But with regard to the payment of interest is concerned, the learned single Judge relied on the judgment of this Court reported in 1988 II LLN 95 – Nathan's Press v. K.Krihnan and others and held that the second respondent was not entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 5. Being aggrieved by the allowing of the writ petition, the appellant has filed the present writ appeal. 6. Mr.Ravindran-the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is not disputing the service of the second respondent from 26.6.1985, but their contention is that the services of the second respondent was confirmed on 1.4.1989 and as such, only from 1.4.1989 the second respondent can be said to be entered into the service of the appellant. The appellant floated the VRS Scheme in the year 2003 and the second respondent had opted to leave the services of the appellant and for calculating the length of service, the second respondent had agreed to calculate the service from the date of confirmation i.e. 1.4.1989. Accordingly, the entire claim of the second respondent was settled by the appellant and he has also executed proper receipts for the receipt of the amount under VRS Scheme and left the service on 30.9.2003. In the receipt, he has specifically gave an undertaking that he will not make any claim in future. So he is now estopped from claiming any further amount for his service. The learned counsel further contended that the service calculated for payment of Gratuity and Provident Fund for the second respondent cannot be taken for the VRS Scheme, as there was no 'employer-employee' relationship after the second respondent left the service of the appellant and the claim is not maintainable in law. The learned counsel further contended that the service calculated for payment of Gratuity and Provident Fund for the second respondent cannot be taken for the VRS Scheme, as there was no 'employer-employee' relationship after the second respondent left the service of the appellant and the claim is not maintainable in law. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of the honouable Apex Court reported in (2003)5 Supreme Court Cases 163 – A.K.BINDAL AND ANOTHER V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS and the judgment of the Kerala High Court reported in1999 (2) LLJ 851-EVERESTEE AND DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER. 7. Mr.G.B.Saravana Bhavan-learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the second respondent joined in service of the appellant on 26.6.1985 is not in dispute. The work assigned to the second respondent in the appellant company was permanent and perennial in nature and he had been in the service of the appellant continuously for a period of 18 years and the same was rightly calculated for payment of gratuity and provident fund benefits. Even as per the evidence of the appellant management, the second respondent left the service under VRS Scheme on 30.9.2002, but the amount was not paid on that day. The learned counsel further contended that the second respondent filed the claim petition to compute the services rendered by him and that there was no specific clause in the Voluntary Retirement Scheme to exclude the service rendered as a Casual Labourer. So, the order passed by the learned single Judge need not be interfered with in the writ appeal. 8. In the judgment reported in(2003)5 Supreme Court Cases 163 – A.K.BINDAL AND ANOTHER V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, the employee, who opted to retire under the VRS scheme and accepted the benefits thereunder, further claimed pay revision for the pre-retirement period. In those facts, the Honourable Apex Court has held that the employee cannot be permitted to raise any grievance regarding enhancement of pay scale and in that event the whole purpose of introducing the scheme would be totally frustrated. 9. In the judgment reported in1999 (2) LLJ 851-EVERESTEE AND DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, the workman accepted the benefits of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and retired from service. Thereafter, he approached the Labour Court claiming more money on par with the employees retired along with the appellant. 9. In the judgment reported in1999 (2) LLJ 851-EVERESTEE AND DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, the workman accepted the benefits of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and retired from service. Thereafter, he approached the Labour Court claiming more money on par with the employees retired along with the appellant. So, the Division of the Kerala High Court has held that the workman will not come under the definition of 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 10. The second respondent filed the claim petition for computing the completed years of his service for calculating the amount payable under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. So, the citations referred to above are not applicable to the facts of this case. 11. It is seen from the records that the total service of the second respondent, i.e. 18 years, was taken into account to pay the benefits under the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme and the Gratuity Act. Whereas, for calculating the amount under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, the appellant computed only 14 years of his service and paid the amount. The appellant has admitted that the second respondent joined the service on 26.6.1985 as a Casual Labourer and his service was confirmed on 1.4.1989. As per the VRS Scheme, an employee will be paid Rs.1,50,000/- for the first three years of his service and thereafter for every completed year of service, Rs.45,000/- will be paid for each year. The terms of the scheme does not refer any term of 'permanent service', so, even a temporary, Casual and Permanent employees are entitled to calculate the entire length of service. So, the second respondent is entitled to get payment towards VRS scheme for the services not taken into account by the appellant management, namely, for a period of four years. The perusal of the receipt said to have been given by the second respondent would reveal that the receipt does not contain any date and according to the second respondent, one month after the acceptance of VRS Scheme, he was asked to sign. The witness examined by the appellant management also was to the effect that the amount under the VRS scheme was paid to the second respondent not on the date of his retirement. In such fact situation, it cannot be held that the workman is estopped from claiming further amount. 12. The witness examined by the appellant management also was to the effect that the amount under the VRS scheme was paid to the second respondent not on the date of his retirement. In such fact situation, it cannot be held that the workman is estopped from claiming further amount. 12. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the workman – the second respondent opted to leave the service in terms of Voluntary Retirement Scheme and left the service on 30.9.2003 and thereafter, there was no 'employer-employee' relationship between them cannot be accepted since the dispute pertains to the payment of compensation payable under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and therefore, the second respondent/workman is entitled to maintain the claim petition and the amount computed under Section 33(3)(C) of the Act is in order and the same cannot be interfered with in the writ appeal. 13. The writ Court considered all the points urged by the appellant and rightly confirmed the order passed by the Labour Court directing the appellant to pay Rs.1,80,000/-towards VRS amount to the second respondent. 14. In view of our discussion supra, we do not find any ground warranting interference in the order passed by the learned single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.