Vaishnavi 9_wp_4663_2026 group.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 4663 OF 2026

Dilipbhai Dhirubhai Mahala ...Petitioner

V/s.

The Administrator Union Territory

Administration of Dadra and Nagar

Haveli ...Respondent

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.4673 OF 2026

Jignesh Dayabhai Patel ...Petitioner

V/s.

1) The Administrator, Union Territory,

Administration of Dadra & Nagar

Haveli, Silvassa.)

2) M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd.

(Silvassa Mfg. Division) ...Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.4759 OF 2026

Riteshkumar Rameshbhai Patel ...Petitioner

V/s.

1) The Administrator, Union Territory,

Administration of Dadra & Nagar

Haveli, Silvassa.)

2) M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd.

(Silvassa Mfg. Division) ...Respondents

WITH

Page No. 1 of 31

15 July 2026 2026:BHC-AS:28939

Vaishnavi 9_wp_4663_2026 group.odt

WRIT PETITION NO.4760 OF 2026

Ramu Mathiya Tokare ...Petitioner

V/s.

1) The Administrator, Union Territory,

Administration of Dadra & Nagar

Haveli, Silvassa.)

2) M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd.

(Silvassa Mfg. Division) ...Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.4762 OF 2026

Yogeshkumar Naraptsinh Solanki ...Petitioner

V/s.

1) The Administrator, Union Territory,

Administration of Dadra & Nagar

Haveli, Silvassa.)

2) M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd.

(Silvassa Mfg. Division) ...Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.4763 OF 2026

Kalpesh Maganbhai Bhandari ...Petitioner

V/s.

1) The Administrator, Union Territory,

Administration of Dadra & Nagar

Haveli, Silvassa.)

2) M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd.

(Silvassa Mfg. Division) ...Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.4764 OF 2026

Manishkumar Jorambhai Patel ...Petitioner

Page No. 2 of 31

15 July 2026

Vaishnavi 9_wp_4663_2026 group.odt

V/s.

1) The Administrator, Union Territory,

Administration of Dadra & Nagar

Haveli, Silvassa.)

2) M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd.

(Silvassa Mfg. Division) ...Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 4766 OF 2026

Anilkumar Chotubhai Patel ...Petitioner

V/s.

1) The Administrator, Union Territory,

Administration of Dadra & Nagar

Haveli, Silvassa.)

2) M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd.

(Silvassa Mfg. Division) ...Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.4767 OF 2026

Dharmendra Kantilal Prajapati ...Petitioner

V/s.

1) The Administrator, Union Territory,

Administration of Dadra & Nagar

Haveli, Silvassa.)

2) M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd.

(Silvassa Mfg. Division) ...Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 4776 OF 2026

Haresh Dalubhai Rohit ...Petitioner

V/s.

Page No. 3 of 31

15 July 2026

Vaishnavi 9_wp_4663_2026 group.odt

1) The Administrator, Union Territory,

Administration of Dadra & Nagar

Haveli, Silvassa.)

2) M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd.

(Silvassa Mfg. Division) ...Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.4838 OF 2026

Anilkumar Bharatsinh Rathod ...Petitioner

V/s.

1) The Administrator, Union Territory,

Administration of Dadra & Nagar

Haveli, Silvassa.)

2) M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd.

(Silvassa Mfg. Division) ...Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.10077 OF 2025

Ganpat Tukaram Phad ...Petitioner

V/s.

M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd.

(Silvassa Mfg. Division) ...Respondent

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 10078 OF 2025

Gulammohmed Ibrahim Patel ...Petitioner

V/s.

M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd.

(Silvassa Mfg. Division) ...Respondent

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 10079 OF 2025

Dilip D. Bhandari ...Petitioner

Page No. 4 of 31

15 July 2026

Vaishnavi 9_wp_4663_2026 group.odt

V/s.

Reliance Industries Industries Ltd. ...Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 12796 OF 2025

Pratikkumar Vinodbhai Patel ...Petitioner

V/s.

1) The Administrator, Union Territory,

Administration of Dadra & Nagar

Haveli, Silvassa.)

2) M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd.

(Silvassa Mfg. Division) ...Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 12806 OF 2025

Viral Suresh Chandra Desai ...Petitioner

V/s.

1) The Administrator, Union Territory,

Administration of Dadra & Nagar

Haveli, Silvassa.)

2) M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd.

(Silvassa Mfg. Division) ...Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.13042 OF 2025

Mukeshbhai Mandabhai Patel ...Petitioner

V/s.

1) The Administrator, Union Territory,

Administration of Dadra & Nagar

Haveli, Silvassa.)

2) M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd.

(Silvassa Mfg. Division) ...Respondents

Page No. 5 of 31

15 July 2026

Vaishnavi 9_wp_4663_2026 group.odt

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.13046 OF 2025

Shaileshkumar Ramabhai Tandel ...Petitioner

V/s.

1) The Administrator, Union Territory,

Administration of Dadra & Nagar

Haveli, Silvassa.)

2) M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd.

(Silvassa Mfg. Division) ...Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.13047 OF 2025

Kiritkumar Gulabbhai Mistry ...Petitioner

V/s.

1) The Administrator, Union Territory,

Administration of Dadra & Nagar

Haveli, Silvassa.)

2) M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd.

(Silvassa Mfg. Division) ...Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.13076 OF 2025

Dineshkumar Babubhai Patel ...Petitioner

V/s.

1) The Administrator, Union Territory,

Administration of Dadra & Nagar

Haveli, Silvassa.)

2) M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd.

(Silvassa Mfg. Division) ...Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.13077 OF 2025

Page No. 6 of 31

15 July 2026

Vaishnavi 9_wp_4663_2026 group.odt

Bhaveshkumar Dirubhai Patel ...Petitioner

V/s.

1) The Administrator, Union Territory,

Administration of Dadra & Nagar

Haveli, Silvassa.)

2) M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd.

(Silvassa Mfg. Division) ...Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.13106 OF 2025

Miteshkumar Ranjitsiingh Thakor ...Petitioner

V/s.

1) The Administrator, Union Territory,

Administration of Dadra & Nagar

Haveli, Silvassa.)

2) M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd.

(Silvassa Mfg. Division) ...Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.14191 OF 2025

Santosh B. Sawant ...Petitioner

V/s.

M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd.

(Silvassa Mfg. Division) ...Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 14422 OF 2025

Jagdishkumar Ramanbhai Patel ...Petitioner

V/s.

1) The Administrator, Union Territory,

Administration of Dadra & Nagar

Haveli, Silvassa.)

Page No. 7 of 31

15 July 2026

Vaishnavi 9_wp_4663_2026 group.odt

2) M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd.

(Silvassa Mfg. Division) ...Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 14433 OF 2025

Mr. Chetan Barot ...Petitioner

V/s.

The Administrator, U.T. Silvassa &

others ...Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 14450 OF 2025

Kalpesh Kalidas Patel ...Petitioner

V/s.

1) The Administrator, Union Territory,

Administration of Dadra & Nagar

Haveli, Silvassa.)

2) M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd.

(Silvassa Mfg. Division) ...Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 14567 OF 2025

Kaileshkumar C Patel ...Petitioner

V/s.

1) The Administrator, Union Territory,

Administration of Dadra & Nagar

Haveli, Silvassa.)

2) M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd.

(Silvassa Mfg. Division) ...Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.14573 OF 2025

Jiteshkumar D. Patel ...Petitioner

Page No. 8 of 31

15 July 2026

Vaishnavi 9_wp_4663_2026 group.odt

V/s.

1) The Administrator, Union Territory,

Administration of Dadra & Nagar

Haveli, Silvassa.)

2) M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd.

(Silvassa Mfg. Division) ...Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.14582 OF 2025

Rakeshkumar Patel ...Petitioner

V/s.

1) The Administrator, Union Territory,

Administration of Dadra & Nagar

Haveli, Silvassa.)

2) M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd.

(Silvassa Mfg. Division) ...Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.14591 OF 2025

Jatin Rathod ...Petitioner

V/s.

1) The Administrator, Union Territory,

Administration of Dadra & Nagar

Haveli, Silvassa.)

2) M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd.

(Silvassa Mfg. Division) ...Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 14627 OF 2025

Sanjay Bhagubhai Bhathiwala ...Petitioner

V/s.

Page No. 9 of 31

15 July 2026

Vaishnavi 9_wp_4663_2026 group.odt

1) The Administrator, Union Territory,

Administration of Dadra & Nagar

Haveli, Silvassa.)

2) M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd.

(Silvassa Mfg. Division) ...Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 14644 OF 2025

Pravinkumar B. Dhodiya ...Petitioner

V/s.

1) The Administrator, Union Territory,

Administration of Dadra & Nagar

Haveli, Silvassa.)

2) M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd.

(Silvassa Mfg. Division) ...Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.15198 OF 2025

Jayesh Narayan Patel ...Petitioner

V/s.

1) The Administrator, Union Territory,

Administration of Dadra & Nagar

Haveli, Silvassa.)

2) M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd.

(Silvassa Mfg. Division) ...Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 17579 OF 2025

Shashikant Patel ...Petitioner

V/s.

M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd.

(Silvassa Mfg. Division) ...Respondent

WITH

Page No. 10 of 31

15 July 2026

Vaishnavi 9_wp_4663_2026 group.odt

WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO. 23265 OF 2025

Rajesh Anant Mali ...Petitioner

V/s.

M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd.

(Silvassa Mfg. Division) ...Respondent

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 17580 OF 2025

Kamleshbhai Paragbhai Patel ...Petitioner

V/s.

M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd.

(Silvassa Mfg. Division) ...Respondent

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.17581 OF 2025

Satish Pandey ...Petitioner

V/s.

M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd.

(Silvassa Mfg. Division) ...Respondent

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.17583 OF 2025

Rajnikant Motabhai Patel ...Petitioner

V/s.

M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd.

(Silvassa Mfg. Division) ...Respondent

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.17585 OF 2025

Vijay Rameshbhai Solanki ...Petitioner

V/s.

Page No. 11 of 31

15 July 2026

Vaishnavi 9_wp_4663_2026 group.odt

M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd.

(Silvassa Mfg. Division) ...Respondent

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.17587 OF 2025

Navinbhai Ahir ...Petitioner

V/s.

M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd.

(Silvassa Mfg. Division) ...Respondent

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 17589 OF 2025

Thakorbhai Budhabhai Ahir ...Petitioner

V/s.

M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd.

(Silvassa Mfg. Division) ...Respondent

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.17592 OF 2025

Prakashkumar Ramanlal Thakor ...Petitioner

V/s.

M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd.

(Silvassa Mfg. Division) ...Respondent

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.17593 OF 2025

Rajesh U. Patel ...Petitioner

V/s.

M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd.

(Silvassa Mfg. Division) ...Respondent

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.17595 OF 2025

Arjunsinh Mahendrasinh Thakor ...Petitioner

Page No. 12 of 31

15 July 2026

Vaishnavi 9_wp_4663_2026 group.odt

V/s.

M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd.

(Silvassa Mfg. Division) ...Respondent

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 17596 OF 2025

Girish Ratilal Mahyavanshi ...Petitioner

V/s.

Reliance industries Limited ...Respondent

________________

Mr. Ankur Pahade with Mr. Anshuman R. Asare & Mr. Sanjay Kakane, for

Petitioner in WP/17579/2025, WP/17593/2025, WP/17585/2025,

WP/17592/2025, WP/17589/2025, WP/17596/2025, WP/17583/2025,

WP/17595/2025, WP/17581/2025, WP/17587/2025, WP/17580/2025,

WP/10077/2025, WP/10078/2025, WP/10079/2025, WP(ST)/23265/2025,

WP/14191/2025

Mr. Alay Sheth ( through VC ) i/b Arvind Law House, for Petitioner in

WP/12806/2025, WP/14433/2025, WP/13046/2025, WP/13042/2025,

WP/13077/2025, WP/13076/2025, WP/14450/2025, WP/14422/2025,

WP/13047/2025, WP/12796/2025, WP/13106/2025, WP/14591/2025,

WP/14582/2025, WP/14644/2025, WP/14567/2025, WP/14573/2025,

WP/14627/2025, WP/15198/2025, WP/4663/2026, WP/4760/2026,

WP/4764/2026, WP/4838/2026, WP/4763/2026, WP/4766/2026,

WP/4762/2026, WP/4759/2026, WP/4673/2026, WP/4776/2026,

WP/4767/2026

Mr. Kiran S. Bapat, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ashwin Dave, Ms. Melanie

Dsouza & Mr. Gaurav Gawande i/b A.S. Dayal & Associates, for Respondent

– Reliance Industries Ltd.

Mr. Harsh Dedhia, for Respondent – The Administrator, Union Territory,

Administration of Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Silvassa.

________________

Page No. 13 of 31

15 July 2026

Vaishnavi 9_wp_4663_2026 group.odt

CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

Judgment reserved on: 01 JULY 2026.

Judgment pronounced on: 15 JULY 2026.

JUDGMENT:

1) In this group of Petitions, Petitioners have assailed the Awards

passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dadra & Nagar

Haveli, Silvassa answering the References made at instances of the

Petitioners in the negative and rejecting their claims. The References

were made by the Appropriate Government to the Labour Court in

connection with the demand raised by the Petitioners for reinstatement

with full backwages and continuity of service, by declaring that the

resignations accepted in pursuance of Voluntary Retirement Scheme

(VRS) actually amounts to their termination.

2)Identical Awards have been passed in all the References. Therefore,

all the Petitions are taken up for analogous hearing and disposal.

3)Respondent No.2-M/s. Reliance Industries Limited operates a

manufacturing division at Silvassa, Union Territory of Dadra & Nagar

Haveli, and Daman & Diu. Petitioners were employed with the

Respondent-employer on various posts. Respondent No.2 introduced

VRS on 7 May 2013, which was initially operational upto 14 May 2013.

According to the Petitioners, Respondent No.2 threatened them and

made them sign blank papers for the purpose of forcible participation in

VRS. The resignation letters shown to have been submitted by the

Petitioners were accepted by the Respondent and various amounts

allegedly payable under the Scheme were credited in the accounts of the

Page No. 14 of 31

15 July 2026

Vaishnavi 9_wp_4663_2026 group.odt

Petitioners. Petitioners raised industrial dispute by approaching the

Labour Commissioner, who took up the demands of the Petitioners in

conciliation. However, the conciliation failed and upon submission of the

failure report, the Labour Commissioner made References to Labour

Court, Silvassa, in respect of demands of Petitioners for reinstatement

with continuity and back wages by declaring resignations under VRS as

termination from services.

4)The Petitioners filed the respective statements of claim in the

References, in which they pleaded that details of the VRS Scheme were

never disclosed to them, that no notice of VRS scheme was published and

that the Petitioners were threatened for securing their signatures on

blank papers. Petitioners denied having participated in the VRS and

disowned the resignation letters shown to have been submitted by them.

Petitioners accordingly claimed for reinstatement in service with full

back wages.

5)The claims of the Petitioners were resisted by the Respondent by

filling written statements contending that the Petitioners had

voluntarily participated in the VRS and that no industrial dispute

existed. It was contended by the Respondent No.2-Company that VRS

was launched on 7 May 2013, which was operational till 14 May 2013 and

was extended twice upto 31 August 2013 and then upto 1 September

2013. That the Scheme was further extended upto 31 December 2014. It

was claimed by the Respondent No.2 that Petitioners voluntarily

submitted applications under the Scheme and the company initially

made advance payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- to each workman. After

acceptance of the applications under VRS, various amounts were credited

Page No. 15 of 31

15 July 2026

Vaishnavi 9_wp_4663_2026 group.odt

in the Bank accounts of the Petitioners, which they accepted without any

demur. Respondents also raised objection of maintainability of the

claims in absence of bringing back the amounts received by the

Petitioners. The Respondent prayed for dismissal of the References.

6)Based on pleadings, the Labour Court framed issues in each of the

References. Rival parties led evidence in support of their respective

claims. After considering the pleadings, documentary and oral evidence,

the Labour Court has proceeded to answer the References in the negative

vide the impugned Awards, which are subject matter of challenge in the

present Petitions.

Submissions on behalf of Petitioners:

7)Mr. Ankur Pahade and Mr. Alay Sheth, the learned counsels have

appeared on behalf of the Petitioners and have canvassed extensive

submissions.

8)Mr. Pahade submits that the Labour Court has grossly erred in

answering the References in the negative. That the VRS Scheme shown

to have been introduced by the Respondent No.2-Company did not

comply with statutory requirements. That no proper publication was

given in respect of the Scheme nor workers were given any time to

understand the exact nature of the Scheme. That the Scheme was

hurriedly implemented by pressurizing the workers. That the Petitioners

were summoned in the office of Human Resource Manager who made

them sign blank papers. That the so-called resignations were shown to

be accepted on the same day.

Page No. 16 of 31

15 July 2026

Vaishnavi 9_wp_4663_2026 group.odt

9)Mr. Pahade submits that the Labour Court has completely ignored

the Affidavits-of-evidence filed by the Petitioners and has erroneously

given weightage to the so-called admission given by the workman-Mr.

Tarunchandra Parmar. That admissions given by Shri. Parmar in the

cross examination cannot be relied against the Petitioners, who led

specific evidence of gross illegalities in implementation of the so called

VRS. That statements made by Shri. Parmar in his cross examination can

cover only his case and cannot be made applicable for deciding whether

there was voluntary participation in the Scheme by all the Petitioners.

That the Labour Court has erroneously relied on the alleged pursis

submitted by the Advocate, which does not bear signature of the

Petitioners. That the Petitioners are not bound by the pursis submitted

by the Advocate.

10)Mr. Pahade further submits that VRS is shown to have been

implemented under the guise of rationalizing the work force. However,

after illegally terminating the services of the Petitioners, the

Respondent-employer recruited more than two hundred new workmen

on lower wages to perform the same work. That the object of the Scheme

was not bonafide and the same is implemented for replacing the

Petitioners with cheaper workforce. He therefore prays for setting aside

the impugned Awards and for making the References absolute in terms of

prayers made in the statements of claim.

11)Mr. Sheth has submitted that the Petitioners were never informed

about the VRS. That Respondent No.2-employer did not produce any

evidence about publication of VRS. That since more than one hundred

Page No. 17 of 31

15 July 2026

Vaishnavi 9_wp_4663_2026 group.odt

workers are removed, provisions of Chapter V-B of the Industrial

Disputes Act 1947, applies to the present case. That therefore, Petitioners

could not have been retrenched without following the process of law.

That the Respondent No.2 witnesses gave various admissions relating to

non-securing of permission for implementation of VRS. That the VRS

was implemented with the objective of effecting mass clearance of

existing workmen and replacing them with cheaper labour. That

management witnesses have given admission of same work been done by

the newly employed workers. That no prior approval was obtained by the

Respondent for implementation of the VRS. That the Respondent made

Petitioners sign on dotted lines by illegally treating such signed papers

as applications for voluntary retirement. That it is not necessary for

Petitioners to deposit the amounts received under VRS. That the

Respondent-employer cannot render Petitioners jobless and then

demand return of VRS benefits. That Court can make an equitable

arrangement and decide prayer for reinstatement without directing

deposit of VRS benefits. Mr. Sheth accordingly prays for setting aside the

impugned Awards.

Submissions on behalf of Respondents:

12)Mr. Bapat, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for Respondent-

employer has opposed the Petitions. He submits that the Petitions

cannot be entertained in absence of deposit of payments received by

Petitioners under VRS. He relies on judgments of the Apex Court in Man

Singh Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited and another

1

. That in similar

circumstances, this Court in Shyam Kashinath Koli and Ors. Vs. M/s.

1 2011 (14) SCC 662

Page No. 18 of 31

15 July 2026

Vaishnavi 9_wp_4663_2026 group.odt

Essel World Leisure Private Limited

2

has refused to entertain the

Petition in absence of refund of VRS benefits. He submits that retirement

granted under VRS cannot be treated as retrenchment and in support he

has relied on judgment of this Court in M/s. Essel World Leisure Private

Limited and ors. Vs. Shyam Kashinath Koli and Ors.

3 .

13)Mr. Bapat submits that VRS has been validly implemented by the

Respondent-employer and there is voluntary participation in the VRS by

the Petitioners. He takes me through the entire timeline in support of his

contention that the VRS was not implemented in a hurried manner. That

the applications were made by the Petitioners on 13 May 2013 and

payments were made to them on 13 May 2013 and the Petitioners were

relieved from services on 31 July 2013. The Petitioners were afforded

sufficient time to reconsider their decision in the event they had any

reservations regarding the VRS. That various payments were thereafter

made to the Petitioners up to 28 March 2014, which were accepted by

them without raising any objections. That, after acceptance of huge

payments, Petitioners have turned around and raised demands for

reinstatement. That the conduct of the Petitioners is such that this Court

need not entertain Petitions filed by them under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India.

14)Mr. Bapat further submits that the Petitioners Advocate filed a

pursis before the Labour Court seeking that the cross-examination of

Shri Tarunchandra Parmar be adopted as the cross-examination in the

2 Writ Petition No. 3685 of 2024 decided on 26 November 2025

3 Writ Petition Lodging No. 14887 of 2023 decided on 29 September 2023

Page No. 19 of 31

15 July 2026

Vaishnavi 9_wp_4663_2026 group.odt

case of each of the Petitioners. That, the Petitioners did not initiate any

action against their Advocate if he had filed a pursis without their

instructions. That the Advocate for Mr. Parmar and Petitioners was the

same. He takes me through cross-examination of Mr. Tarunchandra

Parmar to demonstrate admissions given by him in the deposition. Mr.

Bapat concludes by submitting that Labour Court has rendered the above

findings after due consideration of entire material on record. That there

is no element of perversity in the findings recorded by the Labour Court.

He accordingly prays for dismissal of the Petitions.

Consideration of submissions:

15)Petitioners are ex-workmen of Reliance Industries Limited, which

operates a unit for manufacturing of threads/fiber at Silvassa. The

Petitioners are shown to have retired on voluntary basis after acceptance

of their applications under the VRS floated by the Respondent. There is

no dispute about receipts of various amounts under the VRS by the

Petitioners. However, after receipt of various amounts under the VRS,

Petitioners raised demands for reinstatement with back wages,

contending that they were forced to resign under the VRS by the

Respondent-management.

16)While Petitioners contend that the VRS was hurriedly

implemented by the Respondent without giving proper publicity and

sufficient time, the factual position appears to be otherwise. A perusal of

the written statement as well as evidence on behalf of the Respondent

would indicate that the VRS was kept alive for considerable period of

Page No. 20 of 31

15 July 2026

Vaishnavi 9_wp_4663_2026 group.odt

time by the Respondent. This is clear for following averments in the

written statement:

a. The company had introduced Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS).

The said scheme was launched on 07/05/2013 which was initially in

operation upto 14/05/2013. However, the same by notice dated 14/05/2013

was extended upto 31/08/2013 and was again extended by notice date

01/09/2013upto 31/12/2013 with a modification and clarification that the

optees who will be relieved from 30/11/2013 onwards will be paid special

incentive of Rs. 3,00,000/- (instead of special incentive offered in that

eventuality in the original scheme dated 07/05/2013). The said scheme was

again extended by displaying notice dated 31/12/2013 upto01/05/2014 and

then once again extended wide notice dated 01/05/2014upto 31/12/2014.

The said scheme was displayed on the notice boards of the factory of the

First Party at various places along with its Annexures so as to enable the

workers to know and understand the entire scheme and the Annexures

thereto. The scheme and the Annexures were also displayed by the

company in vernacular language on the notice boards of the factory of the

First Party company. Similarly various notices and modifications as stated

hereinabove were also displayed on the notice boards of the factory of the

company at various places along with its translation in vernacular

language so as to enable all the employees to understand the same.

17)Along with the written statements, Respondent gave the entire

time line about implementation of the Scheme and making of various

payments to the Petitioners. By way of illustration, the timeline

applicable in case of the Petitioner Shri. Chetan Barot, as reflected in

Annexure-A to the written statement, is reproduced below:

Annexure A

1. Name of the Second Party Shri Chetan Barot (19505671).

2. Date of joining of the Second Party 16.08.1996,

3. The Second Party was appointed as Non Supervisory.

4. The Second-Party made an application for voluntary retirement under

the Scheme on 13.05.2013

5. The Second Party was communicated the acceptance of his application

under VRS by the company on 14.05.2013.

6. Rs. 1,00,000/- as advance payment towards VRS benefits were credited

to the bank account of the Second Party by the company on 01.07.2013.

Page No. 21 of 31

15 July 2026

Vaishnavi 9_wp_4663_2026 group.odt

7. The Second Party was relieved from the services of the company on

account of his opting for VRS on 31.07.2013.

8. After deductions as contemplated under VRS and after deduction of

advance payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- the remaining amount of VRS benefits

with his dues to the tune of Rs 979471/- credited to the bank account of

the Second Party by the company on 05.08.2013.

9. The Second Party made an application for payment of gratuity.

10. The company has made payment of gratuity of Rs. 81806/- vide cheque

no. 200484 dated 17.08.2013.

11. The Second Party filled in and submitted Form No. 19 to withdraw his

Provident Fund.

12. The company has made payment of provident fund to the Second Party

on 28.03.2014 of Rs. 184298 /- vide noFund Transfer

13. The Second Party has filled in and submitted a form of pension under

EPS 1995.

14. The Second Party was issued service certificate on 31.07.2013

18)Thus, Petitioner Mr. Chetan Barot, submitted an application for

voluntary retirement under the Scheme on 13 May 2013. The acceptance

was communicated to him on 14 May 2013. He did not raise any protest

nor made any attempt to withdraw from the VRS. He received an advance

payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 1 July 2013. He continued to work for the

entire month of July 2013, but never raised any objection as to why Rs.

1,00,000/- was credited in his account. He was relieved from services on

31 July 2013. After being relieved from services, he received sumptuous

amount of Rs. 9,79,471/- towards VRS benefits. He again did not protest

as to why such amount was credited in his account. He did not make any

attempt to report for duties after 31 July 2013, nor submitted any letter

protesting about the employer not allowing him to work. The above

conduct would clearly indicate voluntary participation by Shri. Chetan

Barot in the VRS.

Page No. 22 of 31

15 July 2026

Vaishnavi 9_wp_4663_2026 group.odt

19)Further conduct of Shri. Barot after 5 August 2013 would leave no

manner of doubt about voluntary nature of participation by him in the

Scheme. He made an application for payment of gratuity and gratuity of

Rs. 81,806/- was paid to him on 17 August 2013. Shri. Barot thereafter

filled and submitted Form No.19 for withdrawal of provident fund.

Accordingly, provident fund of Rs. 1,84,298/- was paid to him on 28

August 2014. Shri Barot also submitted form for pension under

Employee’s Pension Scheme 1995.

20)Thus, Petitioner Shri. Chetan Barot was paid total amount of Rs.

13,45,575/- towards implementation of VRS. He accepted all the amounts

without any demur and thereafter, belatedly raised demand for re-

instatement.

21)Having displayed the above conduct of voluntary participation in

the VRS before raising a demand for reinstatement, the further conduct

displayed by the Petitioners during adjudication of References is even

more telling. One of the aggrieved workman Shri. Tarunchandra Parmar,

filed affidavit of his evidence, which is identically worded as affidavits

filed by the Petitioners. He was subjected to cross-examination on 28

December 2017. He admitted his signature on the application for VRS

and also admitted that he submitted the application to HR department.

He also admitted the signatures of two attesting witnesses. He also gave

admission in respect of document reflecting acceptance of his

resignation application. He also admitted having received the service

certificate and relieving order. He also admitted receipt of advance

amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and the fact that all the workers who opted for

VRS scheme were paid the advance amount. He also admitted

Page No. 23 of 31

15 July 2026

Vaishnavi 9_wp_4663_2026 group.odt

submission of application for payment of gratuity as well as submission

of form for withdrawal of provident fund. He gave a specific admission

that ‘it is true to say that I never objected to any of the above documents’. He

further gave admission that the documents were not blank when he

signed them.

22)Thus, one of the aggrieved workmen Shri. Tarunchandra Parmar,

gave emphatic admission about voluntary participation in the VRS. A

common Advocate was engaged by Shri. Tarunchandra Parmar and by

the Petitioners. The said Advocate filed a pursis in all the References for

adoption of the cross-examination of Shri. Parmar in all the References.

23)The Petitioners did not dispute the factum of they signing the

applications for VRS. They, however, raised the defence that their

signatures were obtained on the applications by force and coercion. Since

signatures on applications were not disputed, the burden of proving the

defence of exertion of force/coercion was on the Petitioners. However

Petitioners thoroughly failed to prove the said defence and in the

Affidavits of Evidence, no evidence was led about exercise of any force on

them for the signing the VRS applications. On the other hand,

admissions given by Shri. Parmar, which are adopted by other

Petitioners, clearly proved that the participation by the Petitioners in the

VRS was voluntary.

24)Perusal of the impugned Awards passed by the Labour Court

indicates that the entire evidence on record has been discussed in detail

to arrive at the conclusion that the Petitioners voluntarily participated in

the VRS. No attempt is made to show any perversity in the findings of

Page No. 24 of 31

15 July 2026

Vaishnavi 9_wp_4663_2026 group.odt

the Labour Court. The findings of the Labour Court are well supported by

the pleadings and the evidence on record. By no stretch of imagination,

can it be even suggested that there is any element of perversity in the

findings recorded by the Labour Court. I therefore find no reason to

interfere in the findings recorded by the Labour Court.

25)The conduct of the Petitioners, both before initiation of litigation

and during pendency of litigation, is such that a clear impression is

created about voluntary participation in the VRS by them. The case

involves conduct on the part of the Petitioners in submitting

resignations in pursuance of VRS, securing payments, not raising of any

objection and thereafter turning around and raising demands for re-

instatement. The Labour Court has rightly appreciated this position

while rejecting the References.

26)In fact, this Court would have been justified in entertaining the

present petitions in view of the authoritative declaration of law laid

down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramesh Chandra Sankla & Ors. vs.

Vikram Cement and another

4 , in which the Hon’ble Apex Court has held

in para 100 as under:

100. Even otherwise, according to the workmen, they were compelled to

accept the amount and they received such amount under coercion and

duress. In our considered opinion, they cannot retain the benefit if they

want to prosecute Claim Petitions instituted by them with the Labour

Court. Hence, the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court as

to refund of amount cannot be termed unjust, inequitable or improper.

`technical' Hence, even if it is held that a contention raised by the

workmen has some force, this Court which again exercises discretionary

4 2008 (14) SCC 58

Page No. 25 of 31

15 July 2026

Vaishnavi 9_wp_4663_2026 group.odt

and 136 of the equitable jurisdiction under Article 136 Constitution, will

not interfere with a direction which is in consonance with the doctrine of

equity. It has been rightly said that a person "who seeks equity must do

equity". Here the workmen claim benefits as workmen of the Company, but

they not want to part with the benefit they have received towards

retirement and severance of relationship of master and servant. It simply

cannot be permitted. In our judgment, therefore, the final direction issued

by the Division Bench needs no interference, particularly when the

Company has also approached this Court under Article 136 of the

Constitution.

27) Again in Smt. Phulabai Prakash Pawar Versus. SKF India Ltd.

Chinchwad Pune and Another

5

this Court, after referring to the

judgments of the Apex Court in Man Singh and Ramesh Chandra

Sankla, has held in paras 14 and 17 as under :

14. The said judgment of the Apex Court in Ramesh Chandra Sankla's

case (supra) was referred to by another two judge bench of the Apex

Court in Man Singh's case (supra). A contention was sought to be raised

on behalf of the workman in the said case that the direction of the High

Court to deposit the amount received by him under the Voluntary

Retirement Scheme alongwith interest at 7.5% p.a. for the reference to

proceed was quite inequitable and illegal. The Apex Court held that the

said submission made on behalf of the workman is fully answered by

the judgment of the Apex Court in Ramesh Chandra Sankla's case

(supra) and reference was made to paragraph 100 of the said judgment.

The Apex Court thereafter concluded that the said case was squarely

covered by the decision of the Apex Court in Ramesh Chandra Sankla's

case (supra) and the contentions raised on behalf of the workman that

the High Court had no jurisdiction for directing refund of the entire

amount received by the Applicant as a condition precedent for

proceeding, was rejected. The said judgments lay down the proposition

of law that one who seeks equity must do equity and therefore one who

calls in question the Voluntary Retirement Scheme after accepting the

benefits must not retain the benefits and must refund the same.

17. In the instant case, the amount paid under the Voluntary Retirement

Scheme is a lump-sum amount and graded payment depending on the

years of service that a workman had put in. There were no different

heads under which any amount was attributed, but was a lump-sum

payment. Hence, the amount paid could not be divided or separated

5 2016 SCC Online Bom 10721

Page No. 26 of 31

15 July 2026

Vaishnavi 9_wp_4663_2026 group.odt

under any heads. The Petitioner has accepted the Voluntary Retirement

Scheme 2008 on account of which there is a severance of relationship as

employer and employee but since the Petitioner is calling in question

the said scheme and is contending that she still is a employee of the

company, she cannot retain the amount she has received for leaving the

company. The same cannot be permitted as one who claims equity must

do equity. Hence equity demands that the Petitioner in the above

Petition and the Petitioners in the companion matters do not retain the

amount and deposit the amount as directed by the Courts below. In so

far as the said aspect is concerned, the fact that the Petitioners in the

letter dated 29.06.2009 have sought the difference in payment between

the Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2008 and Voluntary Retirement

Scheme 2009 is eloquent of the Petitioners real intention in resiling or

retracting from the said Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2008. There is

therefore substance in the contention urged on behalf of the

Respondents that the complaint filed is as and by way of extracting

more monies from the Respondent No. 1.

28)Thus in Ramesh Chandra Sankla and Man Singh, the Apex Court

has held that if an employee accepts the benefits under the VRS and then

turns around to question correctness of implementation of VRS, such

employee must be made to bring back all the benefits received by him

towards the VRS. In similar circumstances in Shyam Kashinath Koli and

Ors. (supra) this Court did not interfere with order passed by Industrial

Court directing deposit of VRS compensation as a condition precedent

for prosecution of the litigation.

29)Upon being queried, the learned counsel appearing for Petitioners

has expressed inability to bring back the monies received under VRS by

the Petitioners. In that view of the matter, the Petitions deserve to be

dismissed on this ground alone. However, purely by way of indulgence,

this Court has proceeded to consider even merits of the Petitions in

absence of willingness to bring back the amount of VRS compensation.

Page No. 27 of 31

15 July 2026

Vaishnavi 9_wp_4663_2026 group.odt

30)Petitioners have strenuously contended that the VRS was nothing

but a mass clearance scheme, where the Respondent has got a freedom

for replacing the expensive workers with new, cheaper workers. In my

view, the VRS is a scheme which is voluntary in nature. There is no

compulsion to opt for the same. There may be variety of reasons why an

employer may consider it appropriate to offer attractive compensation

for reducing the workforce. Voluntary retirement may be aimed either at

reducing the workforce or at replacing the existing workers. In the

present case, it was Respondents defence that it had purchased new

machinery and wanted to employ different set of skilled workmen to

operate that machinery. In my view, the Court cannot go into the factors

leading to the implementation of the VRS. This is because it is a

voluntary option to be exercised by the employee to opt for retirement.

Many times employer makes an attractive offer which becomes difficult

for an employee to resist. It all depends upon the nature of the offer and

the acceptance thereof by the employee. Once the offer is accepted and

retirement is opted for, the employee cannot turn around and question

the intention behind implementing the VRS.

31)In that view of the matter, this Court cannot go into correctness of

the intention on the part of the Respondent in implementing the VRS. If

indeed Petitioners are replaced by other cheaper workmen as alleged, the

same would not ipso facto render the voluntary retirement of the

Petitioners illegal.

32)It is also sought to be contended that permission from authorities

were not obtained for implementation of VRS. Petitioners cannot be

permitted to raise this issue. Their voluntary participation in the scheme

Page No. 28 of 31

15 July 2026

Vaishnavi 9_wp_4663_2026 group.odt

is proved. They cannot enjoy benefits of VRS and then question its

legality contending that permission of some authority was not obtained

for implementation of the Scheme. It is quite another thing that

Petitioners have not demonstrated before this Court any specific

provision of law under which permission of any statutory authority was

necessary for implementation of the VRS.

33)It is also sought to be contended on behalf of the Petitioners that

since more than 100 workers were retrenched, provisions of chapter V-B

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 would apply. It must be observed

that this submission is canvassed only for being rejected. Chapter V-B is

introduced in the Industrial Disputes Act for making special provisions

relating to lay-off, retrenchment and closure in establishment in which

not less than 100 workmen are employed. Cessation of service on

account of acceptance of voluntary retirement does not amount to lay-

off, retrenchment or closure. The issue of voluntarily retirement not

constituting retrenchment has been decided by this Court in M/s. Essel

World Leisure Private Limited (supra), in which it is held in para 33 as

under:

33. The position in law is well recognised that, if an employee tenders

resignation, it would amount to voluntary retirement, within the

excluded category (a) of Section 2(00). Reliance placed by Mr. Bapat on

the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of J. K. Cotton Spinning

and Weaving Mills Company Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and Others appears to

be well founded. In the said case the Supreme Court was confronted

with a question: when the service of an employee is terminated

consequent upon the employer accepting the resignation voluntarily

tendered by the employee, does the termination so brought about

amounts to 'Retrenchment'? After adverting to the provisions of Section

2(s) read with Section 6-N of Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act,

1947, which were by and large similar to the provisions of Section 2(00)

and Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Supreme

Court answered the question in the negative by holding that when an

Page No. 29 of 31

15 July 2026

Vaishnavi 9_wp_4663_2026 group.odt

employee voluntarily tenders his resignation it is an act by which he

voluntarily gives up his job and such a situation would be covered by

the expression "voluntarily retirement" falling in excluded category (a)

and not retrenchment and, thus, the provisions contained in Section 6-

N of the said Act would not be attracted.

34)In my view therefore, the provisions of chapter V-B of the

Industrial Disputes Act have no application to the present case, which

involves cessation of service of the Petitioners due to opting for

voluntary retirements.

35)I do not find much substance in submission canvassed on behalf of

the Petitioners that the Labour Court has completely ignored affidavits

of evidence filed by them. In my view, the entire evidence appearing on

record needs to be appreciated as the whole. Firstly, the affidavits of

evidence of Petitioners are not sufficient enough to draw an inference

that participation in the scheme was involuntary or that any

force/coercion was exerted on the Petitioners for opting for VRS.

Secondly, emphatic admissions are given by one of the workmen, Shri.

Tarunchandra Parmar. The said admissions are adopted by the

Petitioners by submitting the pursis to that effect before the Labour

Court. Thus, the Petitioners have thoroughly failed to discharge the

burden of establishing force/coercion while submitting VRS

Applications.

36)Considering the overall conspectus of the case, I am of the view

that the Labour Court has rightly answered the References in the

negative. The case clearly involves voluntary participation in the scheme

by the Petitioners. None of them submitted even a single complaint

about any force being exerted for participating in the VRS. There was

Page No. 30 of 31

15 July 2026

Vaishnavi 9_wp_4663_2026 group.odt

contemporaneous silence on the part of Petitioners when various

payments were released in their accounts from time to time. The

Petitioners have thereafter taken a volte face after securing payments

flowing through the VRS. The Labour Court has rightly appreciated this

conduct on the part of the Petitioners for declining them the relief.

37)Writ Petitions are thus devoid of merits. They are accordingly

dismissed with no order as to costs.

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

Page No. 31 of 31

15 July 2026