JUDGMENT : G.S. Sandhawalia, J. The present judgment shall dispose of 21 cases i.e. C.W.P. Nos. 483, 484, 485, 486, 487, 488, 489, 491, 492, 493, 494, 495, 496, 497, 498, 499, 500, 528, 529, 530 and 531 of 2014, as common questions of facts and law are involved in all the writ petitions. Facts are being taken from C.W.P. No. 483 of 2014, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Thapar House, Ballarpur Industries and Another v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and Another in which, the dispute is between the management and Subhash Chander-the workman. Challenge in the present petition is to the award dated 30.10.2013 (Annexure P-1) vide which, respondent No. 2-workman was reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages along with compensatory costs of Rs. 31,000/- by way of damages for mental and physical or deal were awarded along with lawyer's fee of Rs. 11,000/- in each case. The reason given for the said reinstatement was that the voluntary retirement scheme (in short 'VRS') was forcibly got signed from the workmen under threat and pressure of illegal and mala fide transfer from Yamuna Nagar to Barabanki (U.P.) and it amounted to unfair labour practice. 2. A perusal of the writ petition would go on to show that on 09.03.2010 (Annexure P-7), a legal notice was got served by the workman upon the management and the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer that the workman, who was appointed as Junior Clerk in the management on 01.06.1986 and was a confirmed employee, had been harassed at the hands of the management by compelling him to accept the Ballarpur Industries Ltd. (BILT) Voluntary Retirement Scheme for (Non-Management) Clerk Staff, 2009, which was in force from 23.01.2009 to 16.02.2009. The scheme had not been opted for and the workmen were transferred to Barabanki (U.P.) and they were offered certain monetary benefits to attract them and it was offered that one eligible son or daughter in the family would be adjusted in the management and also majority of them were not allowed to enter the mill's entrance gate in the morning when they came to report to their routine duty. They were asked to vacate their official company residential quarters immediately on account of their transfer orders and it was in such circumstances, they had signed under protest on the said scheme. They were asked to vacate their official company residential quarters immediately on account of their transfer orders and it was in such circumstances, they had signed under protest on the said scheme. Some of the clerical staff members were to retire in the year 2018 but they were compelled to sign upon the said scheme and the union did not support the cause and the removal from service on 01.04.2009 was illegal without following proper procedure and accordingly, the demand was made to take back the workman in service. 3. Thereafter, demand notice u/s 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act') was served on the same set of allegations on 04.06.2010 and the matter was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication vide order dated 20.12.2010 which was contested by filing a written statement. 4. The plea taken was that the workman had sought voluntary retirement and taken full and final dues and after the receipt of the said benefits, he did not fall within the definition of workman and not competent to raise the dispute. As per the VRS, a sum of Rs. 13,51,518.56/- was paid which he had received without any objection. The amount had been deposited in the bank account and payment was credited through bank clearing process and the amount was accepted voluntarily and of free will. There was no iota of fear, as alleged and the same had been wrongly pleaded. The matter had been wrongly referred for adjudication of the Court and required rejection on this ground. Transfer was a condition of service and the element of fear could not be attributed to the transfer and even if order to that effect was passed, it was the duty of the workman to obey such orders, which was binding upon him. The VRS was contractual in nature and once the terms and conditions had been accepted by the parties including the workman, he was not competent to raise the dispute. The scheme was not strictly closed on 16.02.2009 and was floated for which notice was prominently displayed and as per Clause 52 of the scheme, it could be closed earlier than the date notified and there was a right to postpone the closing of the scheme. The scheme was not strictly closed on 16.02.2009 and was floated for which notice was prominently displayed and as per Clause 52 of the scheme, it could be closed earlier than the date notified and there was a right to postpone the closing of the scheme. The workers had elected to opt for the scheme and had applied and taken all benefits admissible in the said scheme and were debarred from challenging the scheme. It was denied that the workman was ever compelled to sign it by hook or crook and he was a willing party and opted for the same. There was no provision for engaging any eligible son or daughter, as pleaded. The transfer was cancelled in view of the fact that he had opted for the VRS and after taking the said amount, the workers were trying to project the things in a wrongful manner. The workers were not compelled to vacate the accommodation, rather it was vacated of their free will in the year 2009 without any objection and the amount had been tendered by cheque for realization and after receiving the said amount, the worker ceased to be the employee and the workman of the respondent. It was accordingly pleaded that the reference be dismissed. The following issues were framed by the Labour Court on 17.10.2011: 1. Whether the workman was compelled to sign the BILT Voluntary Retirement Scheme and was illegally relieved on 1.4.2009, which amounted to termination? OPW 2. If issue No. 1 is proved whether the claimant is entitled to reinstatement or to the benefits claimed in case reinstatement denied? OPM 3. Whether there is no industrial dispute between the parties and as such the claim is not maintainable? OPM 4. Relief. 5. The worker examined himself as WW 1 and tendered his affidavit whereas, on the other hand, the respondent examined Karam Chand, Computer Operator, Punjab National Bank, Yamunanagar as MW-1 and Sh. V.S. Chawla, Single Window Operator, Allahabad Bank, Yamunanagar. 6. An application dated 05.08.2013 was filed for amendment of the written statement to take the plea of estoppels on the ground that it was not taken due to inadvertence and no evidence was required on this aspect. V.S. Chawla, Single Window Operator, Allahabad Bank, Yamunanagar. 6. An application dated 05.08.2013 was filed for amendment of the written statement to take the plea of estoppels on the ground that it was not taken due to inadvertence and no evidence was required on this aspect. The amended written statement incorporating preliminary objection No. 8 was also filed along with it, which was objected to by filing reply dated 22.08.2013 (Annexure P-12) on the ground that the workers' evidence had been closed and the case was fixed for defence evidence with last opportunity. It was an attempt on the part of the management to mislead the Court and linger on and delay the proceedings on one pretext or the other. That on 26.08.2013, the application was dismissed on the ground that the plea of estoppels could be discussed at the time of final arguments on the basis of the evidence already adduced and the objection regarding the legal pleas would be pressed during that point. The relevant portion of the order reads thus: Heard. The plea of estoppels can be discussed at the time of final arguments. On the basis of evidence adduced by both the parties, the objection regarding legal plea of estoppels shall be pressed during the final arguments. 7. Thereafter, the impugned award was passed on 30.10.2013 accepting the plea of the workers that there was mala fide intention of the respondents, who had transferred the workers to Barabanki and they were compelled to sign the VRS after the signing of the VRS scheme, the said transfer orders were cancelled. The clause providing the management the right to accept or reject any application without assigning any reason and without any right of the employee to withdraw was held to be arbitrary and the action of the management was held to be unfair labour practice and accordingly, issue No. 1 was answered in favour of the workman. In view of the answer of the said issue in favour of the workman, issue No. 2 was decided in favour of the workman also and he was held entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity of service with full back wages. The issue regarding whether any industrial dispute was there between the parties and the claim was not maintainable was not referred to nor the argument of estoppel was discussed. The issue regarding whether any industrial dispute was there between the parties and the claim was not maintainable was not referred to nor the argument of estoppel was discussed. Accordingly, the relief was granted whereby, costs were also imposed to the extent of Rs. 11,000/- each under the headings of damages for mental and physical ordeal and lawyers' fees in each case. The amount received in the voluntarily retirement scheme was to be adjusted in the salary of the workmen. Resultantly, the present writ petition came to be filed. 8. Since a caveat application was also filed and counsel for the workmen was also present, the management was asked as to whether some workable solution can be made for the employees who were to retire in 2015 onwards till the year 2018, as per the chart made on page No. 21 of the paper book since out of 21 workers, 12 already stood retired. However, the management showed its inability to have any workable solution. Accordingly, arguments were heard on 29.01.2014 and the matter was reserved while staying compliance proceedings of the award by the authorities. 9. In the present case, this Court is the opinion that a basic issue has not been addressed by the Labour Court while dilating on the unfair labour practice by the management and thus, the matter is liable to be remanded for fresh decision on issue No. 3 and on the question of estoppel. The said two issues which are inter-linked and were specifically raised before the Labour Court and even judgments were cited but unfortunately, the said issue was not redressed. There is no denying the fact that the 21 workmen were relieved from their duty on 01.04.2009 and 12 of them retired during the pendency of the reference. They received huge amounts against the VRS compensation varying from Rs. 2,42,595/- per person to Rs. 8,22,392/- through cheque. Out of this amount, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was received in advance on 06.04.2009 by the workers. Thereafter, packing and transportation charges were also given to them to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- and a total amount of Rs. 8,13,883.14 was given. In addition to that, provident fund, gratuity, leave encashment, medical, super production bonus to the tune of Rs. 5,37,635/- was paid between the period from 20.04.2009 to 19.05.2009. 10. Thus, a total sum of Rs. Thereafter, packing and transportation charges were also given to them to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- and a total amount of Rs. 8,13,883.14 was given. In addition to that, provident fund, gratuity, leave encashment, medical, super production bonus to the tune of Rs. 5,37,635/- was paid between the period from 20.04.2009 to 19.05.2009. 10. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 13,51,518.56/- was received by the present workman and the amount went upto Rs. 18,10,565/- in the case of Vinod Aggarwal. This would be clear from the chart reproduced by the management which gives the following figures and reads as under: 11. Thereafter, for the first time on 09.03.2010, the first demand was raised by the workmen by way of legal notice, which is 11 months after the first amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- had been received on 06.04.2009. The workmen chose not to raise any dispute at that point of time after having accepted a sum of over Rs. 13,00,000/- in the present case and varying from Rs. 9,94,347/- in the case of one Yog Raj upto Rs. 18,10,565/- in the case of Vinod Aggarwal, as per the consolidated chart (Annexure P-2). Thereafter, the demand notice was issued on 04.06.2010 i.e. after more than a year of even receiving the last payment on 19.05.2009. There is no denial to the fact that the said amounts were credited to the bank accounts of the workmen who had deposited the same and thereafter also, accepted Rs. 50,000/- and vacated the company accommodation available. In such circumstances, the question of estoppel was rightly raised by filing the application and the Labour Court also permitted the management to raise the plea during the final arguments. The said plea was also noticed in para. No. 7 by the Labour Court, which reads thus: Sh. S. Kaushal, Ld. Counsel for the respondent management has argued that to economize budget of the respondent company, voluntary retirement scheme was offered to the workmen and there were no mala fide transfers. He has argued that when the workmen have received the amount under voluntary retirement scheme now they are estopped to challenge the order of the respondent-company regarding the acceptance of voluntary retirement scheme by the workmen. He has placed reliance on the following authorities which have been perused by me. 12. He has argued that when the workmen have received the amount under voluntary retirement scheme now they are estopped to challenge the order of the respondent-company regarding the acceptance of voluntary retirement scheme by the workmen. He has placed reliance on the following authorities which have been perused by me. 12. A large number of judgments cited by the counsel for the management on the said issue were also reproduced but no finding was recorded on the said issue. A perusal of the chart at page No. 21, which is reproduced below, would show that the demand was raised for the first time on 09.03.2010 and six of the workmen were on the verge of retirement on 30.06.2010 and six of them had retired during the pendency of the reference. The Labour Court failed to take these facts into consideration while directing reinstatement and not noticing that the workmen had retained such huge amounts and utilized the same and never re-deposited the same at any point of time or undertaken to redeposit. 13. Counsel for the petitioner, thus, had rightly placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Punjab and Sind Bank and Another Vs. S. Ranveer Singh Bawa and Another, (2004) 4 SCC 484 . In the said case, the Apex Court noticed that the employee had opted for the VRS and during the operation of the same, asked for withdrawing his option. The management did not allow him to opt for it and he was relieved from service. Challenge was laid to the action of relieving from service, which was allowed by the Single Bench of the High Court and the appeal of the bank was also dismissed. The SLP was allowed by the Apex Court by taking into account that even after withdrawing his option, the employee had received three credits in his bank account and used the said amount and thus, was estopped to object to such a scheme. Reliance was placed upon the judgment in Bank of India and Others Vs. O.P. Swaranakar etc., (2003) 2 SCC 721 , to hold that the doctrine of estoppel would apply and accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the termination of the workman was upheld. 14. Reference can also be made to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Maruti Udyog Limited Vs. O.P. Swaranakar etc., (2003) 2 SCC 721 , to hold that the doctrine of estoppel would apply and accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the termination of the workman was upheld. 14. Reference can also be made to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Maruti Udyog Limited Vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2008) 3 LLJ 549 wherein, a reference had been made by the State on the dispute raised by the workman of the said company. In the said case, voluntary retiral benefits had been accepted and encashed and after 2-1/2 years, a plea of bad mental health was taken. The writ petition was allowed and the reference was quashed on the ground that it could not be open to the employee to say that he was compelled by circumstances to seek voluntary retirement. 15. In similar circumstances of voluntary retirement being enforced upon the employee, the principle of estoppel was discussed and it was held in Gyanendra Sahay Vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., (2006) 5 SCC 759 that the workman was not entitled to turn around and say that he was compelled to submit his pre-mature voluntary retirement. The relevant paras read thus: (8) The only issue which arises for re- consideration is whether the appellant was compelled to write and sign the application for premature/voluntary retirement due to undue and excessive pressure, exercised by officers of the respondent-company. xxx xxx xxx (14) We have also perused the Memo of Appeal and other representation made by the appellant. The appellant has made a vague allegation that he was forced to take retirement. Neither he has made it specific nor had given the name of any officer who compelled him to write the letter dt. 1st April, 1995 or exercised undue and excessive pressure to sign the letter of premature/voluntary retirement. Though the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the appellant was compelled to submit the letter of resignation, the same is not supported by any acceptable evidence. It is settled law that suspicion and doubt cannot take the place of evidence. No finding of fact can be given on mere doubt and suspicion or on the basis of baseless allegations. It is settled law that suspicion and doubt cannot take the place of evidence. No finding of fact can be given on mere doubt and suspicion or on the basis of baseless allegations. The appellant having written letter of voluntary retirement and after having accepted the retiral benefits without any protest cannot now turn round and say that he was compelled to submit his premature/voluntary retirement. The appeal has absolutely no merits and we, therefore, have no hesitation to dismiss the same and to affirm the order passed by the learned Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court. No order as to costs. 16. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has vehemently submitted that the VRS was got signed under compulsion on the threat of transfer of the clerical staff to Barabanki (U.P.) wherein, there was no proper unit for adjusting such a large number of employees and it was only a pressure tactic and they were forced to vacate the accommodation and it amounted to unfair labour practice and the order of the Labour Court was well justified. 17. However, keeping in view the fact that there is no denial of the factum that the dispute was never raised immediately after 01.04.2009 and the workmen chose to keep quiet after accepting such huge amounts, this Court is of the opinion that the Labour Court has failed to decide the issue of estoppel in spite of the fact that a specific plea had been raised and similarly, issue No. 3 whether there was no industrial dispute between the parties and the claim was not maintainable, both of which were interlinked have not been addressed. The Labour Court has solely been prejudiced by the fact that the employees had been transferred and thereafter were forced to accept the VRS and it amounted to unfair labour practice. The factum of having accepted the amounts, which were not even given out in cash, but credited in their accounts over a period of 1-1/2 months would prima facie go on to show that the workmen were willing signatories to the VRS at that point of time. This aspect has totally been ignored by the Labour Court and from the cross examination of the worker, it would be apparent that the amounts of packing and transport had also been received, which were deposited voluntarily in the bank account. This aspect has totally been ignored by the Labour Court and from the cross examination of the worker, it would be apparent that the amounts of packing and transport had also been received, which were deposited voluntarily in the bank account. No effort had been made for a period of one year to bring to the notice of the Labour Authorities that the company had forced the workers to sign the VRS scheme. It was also admitted in the cross examination (Annexure P-15) that they had not made any complaint in writing regarding the transfer and the obtaining of the signatures. 18. The Labour Court has failed to examine all these issues and has not even adverted to the cross examination of the workman and thus, it is apparent that it has exercised jurisdiction by assuming jurisdiction and the rules of procedure have not been followed and a failure of justice has been occasioned. The error which is a error of law is apparent on the face of the record since this aspect has totally been ignored while deciding the issue of voluntary retirement and by holding that it was unfair labour practice without examining the record as to the factum of willfully accepting huge amounts and being satisfied with the same for a period of one year and not raising an issue earlier before the competent authorities. The principles of natural justice have thus been blatantly violated. 19. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that it is necessary to interfere in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and set aside the order and remand the matter to the Labour Court, which should analyze the evidence on record and also decide and give a finding on issue No. 3 as to whether there was any industrial dispute left between the parties and whether such a claim was maintainable and on the plea of estoppel. 20. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the matter is remanded to the Labour Court, Ambala to decide the reference afresh. Since the dispute pertains to a large number of workmen who are affected and evidence has already been led, it would be appropriate if the matter is decided within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. Since the dispute pertains to a large number of workmen who are affected and evidence has already been led, it would be appropriate if the matter is decided within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Labour Court, Ambala for necessary compliance.