JUDGMENT : M.K. THAKKER, J. 1. This petition is filed under article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs: “19...... (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to allow this Special Civil Application by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the order dated 28.03.2002 passed in Reference (LCB) Case No. 54 of 2011 passed by the Learned Labour Court Gandhidham-Kutch in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts arising for the consideration is that petitioner was appointed in the year 1989 as a casual worker and he renders his service on that post up to 31.01.1992, thereafter, the petitioner was posted on a permanent post of Survey Assistant-Grade II. He was paid monthly salary of Rs. 16,450/- on 09.07.2009. The respondent warned the petitioner as well as other employees that branch of company is going to shut down and therefore, if the workmen wants to settle their claims, then they may settle else they would be terminated from the service on account of impending closure. There are 22 employees who applied for Voluntary Retirement Scheme and they have been paid a lumpsum amount of Rs. 3,97,000/- towards compensation. Thereafter, neither the company nor the branch was shut down , therefore request was made to the management to consider the case of the petitioner for reinstatement in service. 3. On 25.02.2011 a legal notice was sent through advocate and demand was raised to reinstate the workmen in the service with continuity as well as full back wages. The response was given to the legal notice by the respondent on 28.03.2011 contending that the petitioner had on his own applied for the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and has been paid dues therefore, no question arise for reinstatement in the service. Petitioner thereafter, approached the labour court, Gandhidham Kachchh by filing the reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the “ID Act”) being Reference (LCB) No. 54 of 2011 claiming reinstatement in the service to its original post with all the consequential benefits. Learned labour court after scrutinizing the evidence and the submissions has rejected the reference filed by the petitioner vide award dated 28.03.2022 which is subject matter of challenge before this Court. 4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Krishnan Ghavariya for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Nisarg Desai for the respondent. Learned labour court after scrutinizing the evidence and the submissions has rejected the reference filed by the petitioner vide award dated 28.03.2022 which is subject matter of challenge before this Court. 4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Krishnan Ghavariya for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Nisarg Desai for the respondent. 4.1. Learned advocate Mr. Ghavariya for the petitioner submits that on 09.07.2009 petitioner and other workmen were warned that branch of the company is going to close and workmen should claim their dues by way of settlement and opt for Voluntary Retirement Scheme. As the petitioners were under the impression that services would be terminated without paying a single penny, therefore, they agreed to be a part of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. It is further submitted that under pressure of the respondent-company the workmen opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme under the impression that if the same is not obtained then they would be deprived from their legal dues and would be terminated from the services. Learned advocate Mr. Ghavariya submits that after the termination of the petitioner, fresh appointments were made and on knowledge of the same a notice came to be issued to the company on 25.02.2011. 4.2. Learned advocate Mr. Ghavariya submits that settlement scheme was signed by the Union and therefore, same would not bind to the petitioner, as the petitioner was not a part to the same settlement. Learned advocate Mr. Ghavariya submits that the application which was prayed for production of the muster roll of the employees who were appointed from 1985 to 2013 was ordered in favour of the petitioner the respondent had produced only part of the muster roll which is not in accordance with the order passed by the learned labour court. The entire muster roll were not produced before the learned labour court, however, learned labour court instead of drawing the adverse inference had dismissed the claim of the petitioner by rejecting the reference. Learned advocate Mr. Ghavariya submits that petitioner has deposited the amount of Voluntary Retirement Scheme before the learned labour court on 06.03.2021, pursuant to the order passed by the learned labour court on the application of the respondent-company. 4.3. Learned advocate Mr. Learned advocate Mr. Ghavariya submits that petitioner has deposited the amount of Voluntary Retirement Scheme before the learned labour court on 06.03.2021, pursuant to the order passed by the learned labour court on the application of the respondent-company. 4.3. Learned advocate Mr. Ghavariya submits that though there was breach of Rule 62 and no copy of the settlement were sent to the learned labour court, learned labour court has ignored the above mandatory provisions and dismissed the claim of the petitioner. Learned advocate Mr. Ghavariya further submits that during the cross-examination it was admitted by the witness of respondent-company that contractual employees were not terminated from the services which was in violation of the Principle last come first go and there is a breach of section 25 (g) of the ID Act. Learned advocate Mr. Ghavariya further submits that though the dispute raised during the period where the settlement was in force, learned labour court has given undue weightage to the delay and has dismissed the claim of the petitioner by rejecting the reference. Learned advocate Mr. Ghavariya submits that in view of above the judgment and order passed by the learned labour court in reference (LCB) No. 54 of 2011 is required to be set aside and the petitioner is required to be reinstated with all consequential benefits. 4.4. Learned advocate Mr. Ghavariya for the petitioner has relied on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Workmen of Delhi Cloth And General Mills Versus Management of Delhi Cloth And General Mills Limited and submitted that in breach of mandatory requirement of Rule 62, this petition is required to be allowed. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Nisarg Desai opposing the petition submits that under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme the petitioner has taken advantage by getting the lumpsum compensation and the application which was filed applying for VRS dated 09.07.2009 was signed by the present petitioner. Learned advocate Mr. Nisarg Desai submits that on receiving the benefits on 09.07.2009 notices were issued on 25.02.2011 i.e. after more than 2 years. Learned advocate Mr. Nisarg Desai submits that payment was made through the cheque which was en-cashed by the petitioner and therefore, the contention that he was pressurized to opt for the VRS is baseless. Learned advocate Mr. Nisarg Desai submits that on receiving the benefits on 09.07.2009 notices were issued on 25.02.2011 i.e. after more than 2 years. Learned advocate Mr. Nisarg Desai submits that payment was made through the cheque which was en-cashed by the petitioner and therefore, the contention that he was pressurized to opt for the VRS is baseless. Learned advocate Mr. Nisarg Desai has relied on the communication wherein, the petitioner has signed on the receipt-cum-declaration authorizing to pay the Union contribution of Rs.12,000/- from the compensation awarded to the present petitioner. Learned advocate Mr. Nisarg Desai submits that infact a copy of the scheme has been sent to all the authorities which is reflected from settlement schemes, memorandum of settlement itself. Learned advocate Mr. Nisarg Desai has relied by the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of A.K. Bindal and Others vs. Union of India, (2003) 5 SCC 163 and submitted that by opting the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and accepting the benefits thereof, the petitioner leave his all rights and therefore he cannot re-agitate his claim. At the end learned advocate has submitted that learned labour court, after assigning detailed reasons has dismissed the reasons and therefore, there is no error committed. Hence, this petition is required to be dismissed. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates and perusing the records the mute question arise for the consideration of this Court is that whether the resignation tendered by the petitioner was under force and labour court has committed any error in rejecting the reference? It is undisputed fact that the petitioner was joined as a casual worker in the year 1985 and service of the petitioner was regularized from 20.03.1993 and was appointed as a Survey Assistant. The memorandum of settlement which is dated 08.07.2009 was signed by the employer and the Union and in the said settlement it is referred that the copy has been sent to Assistant Labour Commissioner, Deputy Labour Commissioner, labour Commissioner, Ahmedabad and Secretary Government of Gujarat, Labour Ministry Gandhinagar. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has received the benefits by opting the Voluntary Retirement Scheme of Rs. 3,97,000/- by way of cheque which was subsequently encashed by the petitioner by depositing in the account. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has received the benefits by opting the Voluntary Retirement Scheme of Rs. 3,97,000/- by way of cheque which was subsequently encashed by the petitioner by depositing in the account. The application opting for Voluntary Retirement Scheme dated 09.07.2009 contains the signature of the employees wherein, the authorization was also given to the company to deduct the Union’s contribution of Rs. 12,00,000/-. Receipt-cum-declaration also suggests that the petitioner has received the amount towards full and final settlement by giving resignation and availing the benefits under Voluntary Retirement Scheme. For the period of two years, neither any application withdrawing the resignation or any complaint was made to the Conciliation Officer alleging that resignation was given under force or coercion. 7. The notice was issued on 25.02.2011 claiming that under the guise that company is closing now, resignation was taken and after resignation of the petitioner, new employees were appointed. This notice was issued after delay of almost two years in which no explanation was offered stating the reasons that under what circumstances no complaints were made for this period. 8. The judgment which was relied by the learned advocate for the petitioner stating that there was breach of Rule 69 as a copy of the scheme were not sent to the authority would have no barring in the fact on present petition as in the scheme itself there is an endorsement that it was sent to the various authorities including the Labour Commissioner. In that scenario, the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Workmen of Delhi Cloth And General Mills Versus Management of Delhi Cloth And General Mills Limited is inapplicable. During the course of evidence, no documents were produce intending that the application for resignation was given under coercion. Bare pleading that under force or under guise that company is closing down would not suffice the say of the petitioner, more particularly when benefit has been received pursuant to the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. 9. It is the say of the petitioner that this memorandum of settlement is not signed by him, therefore, it would not bind to the petitioner. Bare pleading that under force or under guise that company is closing down would not suffice the say of the petitioner, more particularly when benefit has been received pursuant to the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. 9. It is the say of the petitioner that this memorandum of settlement is not signed by him, therefore, it would not bind to the petitioner. It is true that memorandum of settlement was signed by the President of the Union, however, the application form under Voluntary Retirement Scheme dated 09.07.2009 is duly signed by the present petitioner as well as the Authorization application for giving the contribution of Rs. 12,000/- to the Union is also signed by the present petitioner. It is not the case of the present petitioner that the signature is forged or has not read the document and without applying mind the signature was made. Learned labour court after examining the case in detail has come to the conclusion that once the benefit under scheme has been opted, and thereafter, claiming that, that benefit was under the coercion or under force would not give any entitlement to the petitioner for reinstatement or any other wages. For sake of believing, even if it is accepted that it was under coercion then also petitioner could have applied or could have filed any application withdrawing that resignation within a prescribed time. However, for a period of two years he remained silent and thereafter, raised grievance before the Conciliation Officer stating that the resignation was not given voluntarily but under coercion. This itself suggests that petitioner must have changed his mind after taking advantage of the scheme which is not permissible under law. 10. At this stage, the judgment relied by the learned advocate for the respondent in the decision rendered in the case of A.K. Bindal and Another vs. Union of India and Others, (2003) 5 SCC 163 is required to be referred: “33. The Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) which is some times called Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS) is introduced by companies and industrial establishments in order to reduce the surplus staff and to bring in financial efficiency. The Office Memorandum dated 5.5.2000 issued by Government of India provided that for sick and unviable units, the VRS package of Department of Heavy Industry will be adopted. The Office Memorandum dated 5.5.2000 issued by Government of India provided that for sick and unviable units, the VRS package of Department of Heavy Industry will be adopted. Under this Scheme an employee is entitled to an ex-gratia payment equivalent to 45 days emoluments (pay + D.A.) for each completed year of service or the monthly emoluments at the time of retirement multiplied by the balance months of service left before the normal date of retirement, whichever is less. This is in addition to terminal benefits. The Government was conscious about the fact that the pay scales of some of the PSUs had not been revised with effect from 1.1.1992 and therefore, it has provided adequate compensation in that regard in the second VRS which was announced for all Central Public Sector Undertakings on 6.11.2001. Clause (a) of the scheme reads as under: (a) Ex-gratia payment in respect of employees on pay scales at 1.1.87 and 1.1.92 levels, computed on their existing pay scales in accordance with the extant scheme, shall be increased by 100% and 50% respectively. 34. This shows that a considerable amount is to be paid to an employee ex-gratia besides the terminal benefits in case he opts for voluntary retirement under the Scheme and his option is accepted. The amount is paid not for doing any work or rendering any service. It is paid in lieu of the employee himself leaving the services of the company or the industrial establishment and foregoing all his claims or rights in the same. It is a package deal of give and take. That is why in business world it is known as “Golden Handshake.” The main purpose of paying this amount is to bring about a compete cessation of the jural relationship between the employer and the employee. After the amount is paid and the employee ceases to be under the employment of the company or the undertaking, he leaves with all his rights and there is no question of his again agitating for any kind of his past rights, with his erstwhile employer including making any claim with regard to enhancement of pay scale for an earlier period. If the employee is still permitted to raise a grievance regarding enhancement of pay scale from a retrospective date, even after he has opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme and has accepted the amount paid to him, the whole purpose of introducing the Scheme would be totally frustrated. 35. The contention that the employees opted for VRS under any kind of compulsion is not worthy of acceptance. The petitioners are officers of the two companies and are mature enough to weigh the pros and cons of the options which were available to them. They could have waited and pursued their claim for revision of pay scale without opting for VRS. However they, in their wisdom thought that in the fact situation VRS was a better option available and chose the same. After having applied for VRS and taken the money it is not open to them to contend that they exercised the option under any kind of compulsion. In view of the fact that nearly ninety nine per cent of employees have availed of the VRS Scheme and have left the companies (FCI & HFC), the writ petition no longer survives and has become infructuous.” 11. In view of the same, this Court did not find any perversity to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and therefore, this petition fails.