JUDGMENT : M.K. THAKKER, J. 1. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award dated 30.05.2019 passed by the learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (T) No. 1348 of 2004, whereby the disengagement of the respondent was held to be illegal and the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- in addition to the amount already paid under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner Company is engaged in the business of manufacturing Air Compressors and Vacuum Pumps. The respondent was employed with the petitioner establishment since the year 1994 and was working as a Technician in the Assembly Department of the SCBU Division of the Company. On 10.05.1999, the Company introduced a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS), offering compensation and benefits as per the terms of the scheme. The Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) was applicable to all permanent employees, including Managers, Executives, and Superintendents, who were over 40 years of age and had completed at least 10 years of continuous permanent service with the establishment. Initially, the scheme was operational from 01.07.1999 to 31.03.2000 and was subsequently extended. Approximately 187 employees availed the benefits of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) between November 1997 and December 2001. The respondent submitted his application opting for voluntary retirement on 23.04.2001, which was accepted by the Company on 13.05.2001. However, prior to the acceptance, the respondent made a request to continue working for a few more months, which was considered and granted by the petitioner on humanitarian grounds. Thereafter, the respondent again submitted a fresh application for voluntary retirement on 10.12.2001, which was accepted on 11.12.2001. The petitioner accordingly issued a relieving order and service certificate on 15.12.2001. The respondent was paid Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS), Rs.3,001/- as a gift, Rs.3,032/- as leave encashment, Rs.2,78,973/- towards gratuity, Rs.10,838/- under the GSLI claim, and Rs.2,957.26/- towards bonus for the year 2001–2002. In total, the respondent received Rs.7,97,801.26/- pursuant to his voluntary retirement application. 2.1. However, after a lapse of nearly 2.5 years, on 31.05.2004, the respondent raised a grievance through his Union alleging that he was coerced into retiring from service. In total, the respondent received Rs.7,97,801.26/- pursuant to his voluntary retirement application. 2.1. However, after a lapse of nearly 2.5 years, on 31.05.2004, the respondent raised a grievance through his Union alleging that he was coerced into retiring from service. Based on this grievance, the learned Assistant Labour Commissioner referred the dispute for adjudication to the learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad, under Reference (T) No.1348 of 2004 on 21.09.2004, for the issue of whether the respondent should be reinstated with full back wages. The respondent filed his statement of claim on 18.01.2005, nearly six years after the actual date of retirement, alleging that no Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) scheme was in existence in December 2001 and that he was forced to retire. The petitioner, in response, filed its written statement contending that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from the service and on his application to pay the gratuity the amount was paid. It was further contended that the complaint was filed three years after the respondent’s voluntary retirement. Learned court, on considering the evidence placed by both the parties as well as the submission made has awarded the reference in favour of the respondent which is subject matter of challenge before this Court. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Nirav Joshi for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.P.C.Chaudhari for the respondent. 4. Learned Advocate Mr. Joshi submits that the respondent, having applied for voluntary retirement and having accepted the benefits under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) without any demur, cannot now be permitted to retract from his stand. It is submitted that once the employee retires by accepting the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) benefits, the employer- employee relationship ceases to exist. Learned advocate Mr.Joshi submits that the respondent had applied for voluntary retirement on 10.12.2001, which was accepted by the petitioner on 11.12.2001. Pursuant to the acceptance, the respondent received all the benefits under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS). However, subsequently without stating any reasons or alleging any victimization the reference was filed. Learned advocate Mr.Joshi submits that the respondent had, in his own handwriting, filled out Form ‘I’ under the Payment of Gratuity Act, claiming gratuity as a retiring employee and on receiving the said benefits, after more than three years of period, the complaint was made before the learned Commissioner. Learned advocate Mr.Joshi submits that the respondent had, in his own handwriting, filled out Form ‘I’ under the Payment of Gratuity Act, claiming gratuity as a retiring employee and on receiving the said benefits, after more than three years of period, the complaint was made before the learned Commissioner. Learned advocate Mr.Joshi submits that prior to raising the dispute, the respondent neither addressed any communication to the petitioner alleging forceful resignation nor lodged any complaint with the police or appropriate authorities. 4.1. However, reference was allowed solely on the ground that the petitioner allegedly failed to produce the specific Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) scheme that was in force at the time of the respondent’s application. Learned advocate Mr.Joshi submits that in fact, the petitioner had placed on record documentary evidence, including the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) Scheme that was operational during 1997–1999 and which was subsequently extended until December 2001. It is submitted that 187 employees had availed the benefits of the said scheme during the extended period. Learned advocate Mr.Joshi submits that similarly situated employees who retired under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS), including during December 2001, did not raise any grievance regarding the non- existence of the scheme. Learned advocate Mr.Joshi submits that the petitioner had also placed on record its annual report showing that a total amount of Rs. 5,00,46,000/- was paid to its employees under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS). Learned advocate Mr.Joshi submits that without any cogent or credible evidence of victimization, learned court has believed the case of the present respondent and has awarded the amount mentioned in the operative part. Learned advocate Mr.Joshi submits that the respondent's son is still employed with the petitioner Company, which further belies any allegation of victimization. However, without considering these facts and evidence, learned court has awarded the reference in favour of the respondent and therefore, it is prayed to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned award. 5. Per contra, learned Advocate Mr. Chaudhari submits that although the respondent’s resignation was initially taken on 23.04.2001 and accepted on 13.05.2001, the respondent continued to work with the petitioner establishment until December 2001. He further submits that since all communications regarding the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) were in the English language, the respondent, not being well-versed in English, could not comprehend the contents and therefore could not raise a timely objection or dispute promptly. He further submits that since all communications regarding the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) were in the English language, the respondent, not being well-versed in English, could not comprehend the contents and therefore could not raise a timely objection or dispute promptly. Learned advocate Mr.Chaudhari submits that in absence of the scheme which was existing in the month of December, 2001, the learned court is justifying in awarding the reference in favour of the respondent, therefore, no interference is required and the petition is required to be dismissed. 6. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties and upon referring to the records, it emerges that the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) dated 31.08.1999 was part of the record before the learned Labour Court. Clause 2(a) of the scheme specifies the time period from 01.09.1999 to 30.09.1999. The criteria mentioned for opting into the scheme were that the employee must have completed 40 years of age and have at least 10 years of continuous permanent service. The said scheme was published via notice on the notice board, and around 187 employees opted for the scheme and received the compensation as alleged. The list, which forms part of the record, suggests that from 30.11.1997 to 30.12.2001, employees opted for the scheme and received its benefits. It is an undisputed fact that, except for the respondent, no other employee raised any grievance regarding the non- existence of the scheme or allegations of forced resignation. It is also not in dispute that the respondent received compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- along with other benefits, amounting to Rs.7,97,801/-. Furthermore, it is undisputed that first time, the grievance was raised only on 31.05.2004, by way of notice, after a significant delay following the respondent's retirement on 15.12.2001. During this interregnum period, the respondent admits that no communication was made, nor was any complaint filed before any authority. 6.1. The gratuity application filed by the respondent indicates that the reason for claiming gratuity was stated as "voluntarily retired under the scheme on 15.12.2001." This application was filed on 17.12.2001, and the corresponding payment was made accordingly. Form I, filled out and admitted by the respondent during cross-examination in his own handwriting, is not disputed. The only contention raised during cross- examination was regarding the alleged forced resignation, but the respondent admitted his signature on the voluntary retirement application form marked as 10/1. Form I, filled out and admitted by the respondent during cross-examination in his own handwriting, is not disputed. The only contention raised during cross- examination was regarding the alleged forced resignation, but the respondent admitted his signature on the voluntary retirement application form marked as 10/1. He also admitted that no complaints were filed before any authority regarding the alleged forced signatures taken on 10.12.2001 or 11.12.2001. The service certificate issued on 15.12.2001 was duly received and endorsed by the respondent. The claim that the gratuity application was forcefully signed was refuted by the respondent's own admission that the gratuity form was sent to his home and signed voluntarily on 06.02.2002. In that background there was no question arising of taking signature forcefully as contended by the respondent. Furthermore, the respondent admitted in his cross-examination that medical benefits were extended to him until 2016, even though he had retired in 2001. It was also admitted that his son continues to work with the same company. The Labour Court relied on the fact that the petitioner failed to produce the original Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) despite the order passed below Exh.46. The explanation offered, that the scheme was old and hence untraceable was overlooked by the learned Court. The petitioner, however, produced various applications by employees opting for the scheme, along with relieving letters below mark 56/3 to 56/10, to demonstrate that the scheme remained in operation until December 2001, and no grievances about forced resignation were raised by any employee. Additionally, the Labour Court had earlier passed an order below Exh.26 directing the respondent to deposit the amount received under the scheme, which was challenged before this Court in Special Civil Application No. 2457 of 2016. Though the Court did not interfere with the impugned order, it directed that Rs.5,00,000/- out of Rs.7,97,801.26 /- be deposited. Thereafter, the respondent complied, and the amount was later returned after the award was passed in his favour. During the pendency of the petition, this Court further directed that the amount be deposited into the respondent's account. Against this background, the moot question that arises is whether the application for opting into the scheme can be considered a case of forced resignation? 6.2. To examine the above question, this Court has referred the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Gyanendra Sahay vs M/S. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Against this background, the moot question that arises is whether the application for opting into the scheme can be considered a case of forced resignation? 6.2. To examine the above question, this Court has referred the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Gyanendra Sahay vs M/S. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd reported in 2006 5 SCC 759 wherein, Apex Court has in an identical case has held as under:- Paragraph 12,13,14 “12) It is seen from the said letter that the request for premature/voluntary retirement was accepted by the management on 01.04.1995 with immediate effect. The letter also clearly states that the appellant will be entitled to all the retiral benefits of the Company which would have otherwise been available to him at his superannuation. The management has also stated that the appellant's request for ex-gratia is being considered separately. By the said letter, the appellant was directed to get in touch with the General Manager (Finance & Accounts) for his full and final settlement. 13) In this context, it is useful to refer page 96 of the appeal paperbook which was marked as Annexure P-5 which is a letter dt.12.4.1995 addressed to the appellant. It is stated in the letter that the management has decided to extend the following facilities to the appellant on his premature retirement :- "1.Retiring Gratuity as per rules for the actual service rendered by you. 2 Provident Fund, including Co.'s contribution in full. 3 Superannuation Fund, as per rules. 4 Payment of cash, equivalent to the privilege and furlough leave including proportionate leave due to you. 5 Free medical facilities as applicable to the retiring officers in the respective divisions. In addition to the above, you will be eligible for an ex- grade payment, details of which will be available with DM (Accounts), Mines Division. You may kindly contact him on any working day during office hours." 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. 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. 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.” 6.3. Furthermore, this Court has referred the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of General Manager, Electrical Rengali Versus Hydro Electric Project, Orissa reported in 2019 (10) SCC 695 wherein, Apex Court has in an identical case has held as under:- “70. There is no dispute that the applicants have been favoured with an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- which is the amount which is contemplated under the Scheme besides other amounts. These amounts have been paid by cheques into the accounts of the applicants. The applications which have been produced before us appear to be witnessed by two witnesses. This is as per the terms of the Notification which contemplates that the application must be signed by two witnesses. So also, in regard to the payments which are effected, the authorization appears to be supported by the signatures of two witnesses. 71. No doubt, as far as this aspect is concerned, the applicants do not dispute that they have received the payments. In fact, they will not be in a position to establish that they have not received the payments. They would brush aside the payments on the basis that they were paid some amounts which they thought they were entitled to on the basis that they were being regularized. In fact, they will not be in a position to establish that they have not received the payments. They would brush aside the payments on the basis that they were paid some amounts which they thought they were entitled to on the basis that they were being regularized. A sum of Rs.1,25,000/- plus other benefits was paid to all the applicants. This amount happens to be also the amount which was contemplated under the VSS. 72. None of the applicants have a case that the signatures in the applications have not been appended by them. They do not appear to have a case about the witnesses as such except as we have noticed in the evidence. It may be true that one applicant out of the 90 has written a letter purporting to withdraw. It is noteworthy that other 89 applicants had not made any application seeking to withdraw. In the application filed by one worker (First Applicant), which we have extracted, he would state that he was threatened and coerced and, being afraid, he was made to sign the application for VSS against his wish. He never intended to take the VSS and he was told that he would be forced to dire striats. No doubt, his application is dated 01.06.2000, which is the very next date of the making of his application. It may be remembered that AW1 was not a person who was entitled even to the benefit of the order passed by the High Court as he had not completed five years as on the date of the judgment. There can be no similarity between a case of threat or coercion on the one hand and fraud. 73. The manner in which fraud was perpetuated, the exact nature of the fraud and person or persons by whom the fraud was perpetuated, are found missing in the pleadings, as noticed by us. As far as the first applicant is concerned, the prevarication in his case is palpable and discernible from the somersault that he carried out in the pleading in the application in comparison with his case in the letter, which he wrote seeking to withdraw from the Scheme, on 01.06.2000, wherein the case was built around alleged threat and coercion. As far as the first applicant is concerned, the prevarication in his case is palpable and discernible from the somersault that he carried out in the pleading in the application in comparison with his case in the letter, which he wrote seeking to withdraw from the Scheme, on 01.06.2000, wherein the case was built around alleged threat and coercion. It may be noticed that coercion is another element which is antithetical to free consent and is separately dealt with under Section 15 of the Contract Act. He minces no words after employing the expression “threat, coercion”, when he declared that being afraid, he was made to sign the VSS against his wish. He was threatened with being forced into dire straits unless he signs the application. Conspicuous by its absence, in his letter dated 01.06.2000, is even the faintest whisper about fraud of any kind. This is the application dated 01.06.2000. It must be noted it is on the very next day after he made the application claiming the VSS on 31.05.2000. The application under Section 33A of the Act, on the other hand, came to be filed much later, i.e., on 19.04.2001, after several months. In the pleading, in paragraph-9 of the application, as to who defrauded amongst the authorities, is not pleaded. It must be noted that the persons arrayed in the application are the General Manager (Electrical); Manager (Electrical); Maintenance Division; Manager (Electrical), Protection and Control Division; Director (HRD) of the Corporation. It is not even mentioned as to who amongst them committed the alleged act of fraud. No doubt, the fraud could be committed by either the opposite parties or anyone action at their behest. If so, it should have been pleaded. There is no such plea forthcoming. The substance of the plea is that for regularization, which we gather, on a liberal reading of the application, being one under the Act and bearing in mind also the need to be not far too strict, enmass signatures of workers were taken on certain papers and by showing undue influence. The pleas of fraud and undue influence are distinct and separate. It will be noticed that the case of coercion and threat does not make its appearance in the pleading.” 6.4. The pleas of fraud and undue influence are distinct and separate. It will be noticed that the case of coercion and threat does not make its appearance in the pleading.” 6.4. This Court has also referred the decision rendered by the Bombay High Court in the case of Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation , Latur Versus Arjun S/o Shripati Thakur reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 7049 wherein, the concerned court, in an identical case has held as under:- “9. It is trite law that a resignation or even an application for voluntary retirement, if the V.R. scheme provides for a retracting / withdrawal clause, can be withdrawn before it is accepted. 10. There is no dispute that the respondent purportedly resigned on 20/06/2000 and the same was accepted by order dated 08/08/2000. This clearly indicates that his resignation is not accepted hurriedly or in undue haste. 12. It is trite law that withdrawal of resignation after its acceptance khs/JULY 2016/2050-d is not to be entertained. (See Indrajit Bhanot Vs.Punjab National Bank and others, 2007 LLR 125). So also once an employee has opted for retirement, he cannot allege coercion after receiving his legal dues. (Read : K.V.Ramchandran and others Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chennai, [2007 LLR 319], Tulip Star Hotels Vs. Union of Centaur Tulip Employees and others, [2007 LLR 1002], M.P.Behere Vs. Union Bank of India, [ 2009(3) CLR 909 ] Bombay Division Bench, P.Lal Vs. Union of India, [2003 AIR SC Weekly 849])” 7. Considering the above decisions and the facts of the present case, it emerges that the respondent, after opting for the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) and availing all the benefits thereunder in the year 2001, raised a grievance for the first time after more than two and a half years. In this background, in the opinion of this Court, the element of time becomes essence. If an employee has indeed been forced to resign, or if coercion or duress was exerted, it is expected that such an employee would promptly approach the appropriate authority to voice their grievance. However, in the present case, the respondent waited for nearly three years after having received all terminal dues including the gratuity for which the application was signed at home. However, in the present case, the respondent waited for nearly three years after having received all terminal dues including the gratuity for which the application was signed at home. Under such circumstances, it is not open for the employee at a belated stage to allege that the resignation was not voluntary but obtained through force. 7.1. The ingredients to prove forceful resignation must appear through the events and surrounding circumstances, from which it can be easily inferred that the employee suffered duress or coercion while resigning. However, instead of taking prompt action, the employee remained inactive for a period of three years. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned labour court has committed an error in believing the case of the respondent employee with regard to the forceful resignation. Learned court has assigned the reasons stating that retirement scheme was not produced on record and as it ended in September, 1999, the opting of the scheme voluntarily in the month of December, 2001 is doubtful. However, in the opinion of this Court, not only the respondent but around 187 employees opted for the scheme, and the list annexed with the petition memo shows that 56 employees availed of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme after 1999. This undermines the reasons given by the learned Labour Court in passing the award in favour of the respondent. 8. In view of the circumstances discussed above, the impugned award suffers from infirmities and, therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed by setting aside the order passed in favour of the respondent. 9. Resultantly the petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 30.05.2019 passed by the learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (T) No. 1348 of 2004 is hereby set aside. 10. As the amount which is deposited before the learned court is already transferred to the account of the present respondent, no further order is required as per the order dated 06.02.2020.