Copper Ltd. & ANR Vs. Banshi Lal & Ors  INSC 681 (8 December
Sinha & P.P. Naolekar
SINHA, J :
Appellant is a Government of India Undertaking. It had various copper mines and
factories situate in different parts of the country. One of its mines was
situate in the District of Alwar in the State of Rajasthan known as 'Dariba
Copper Project'. It is stated that the mines situated in other States are lying
closed except one mine being Malij Khan situate in the State of Madhya Pradesh.
Having regard to the fact that the said Dariba Mine was to be closed, a notice
of closure had been issued. The Appellant Company, however, had also floated a
Voluntary Retirement Scheme in the year 1993. Options were called for from the
employees of the said Dariba Mine Project as to whether they would like to be
transferred to the mines operating in other States or opt for the voluntary
retirement scheme. Out of 241 employees working in the said Dariba Mine, 112
opted for voluntary retirement under the scheme. 10 of them, however, later on
withdrew their offers. They were not allowed to do so by the Appellant herein
on the premise that as the options had been exercised in printed proforma which
contained a clause that such option once exercised could not be withdrawn;
their offers stood accepted.
regard to the aforementioned stand of the Appellant, a writ petition was filed
by them which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge. An intra-court appeal,
however, was filed only by six persons out of the ten writ petitioners. The
other four persons, thus, accepted the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
of the impugned judgment, a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court opined
that the stand of the Appellant Company was not correct, as the concerned
employees had withdrawn their offers before the same were accepted. Allowing
the appeal filed by the Respondents herein, it was directed :
the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside.
It is directed that the appellants shall be treated to have continued in
service of the respondent company. They shall be reinstated with back
wages." Mr. Deba Prasad Mukherjee, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the Appellant, submitted that the High Court was not correct in issuing the
aforementioned directions keeping in view the fact that the Appellant is not in
a position to re-employ the Respondents as except one mine all other mines are
attention was further drawn to an order dated 12.03.2001 passed by this Court
which is as under :
is granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The order under challenge
shall remain stayed pending disposal of the appeal. It is needless to mention
that if the appellants fail in the appeal they will have to give wages to the
respondents including the back wages for the period for which otherwise they
would have been in service. It does not preclude the respondents from receiving
the benefits under the voluntary retirement scheme which would be without
prejudice to their contentions in this appeal." It was submitted that
pursuant to or in furtherance of the said order, the amount payable in terms of
the voluntary retirement scheme has already been paid, details whereof are as
Sl.No. Name Date of Birth Date of Sup- erannuation on attaining of 58 years age
Amount paid under VRS Payment Date 1.
Lal 05.11.43 30.11.2001 63608.20 20.4.2002 2.
Lal 27.09.50 30.09.2008 173146.80 23.4.2002 3.
21.05.49 30.09.2007 172015.50 30.4.2002 4.
Lal 26.11.50 30.11.2008 169966.00 30.4.2002 5.
26.11.52 30.11.2010 163304.10 23.4.2002 6.
Ram 03.04.50 30.04.2008 178788.00 30.4.2002 " Mr.Vijay Hansaria, the
learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents, on the other
hand, supported the judgment of the High Court.
contention raised on behalf of the Appellant herein that in view of the
stipulation contained in the option form to be filled up by the employees that
the option once exercised cannot be withdrawn stands concluded by a three-Judge
Bench Judgment of this Court in Bank of India and Others etc. v.
Swarnakar and Others etc. [(2003) 2 SCC 721], wherein it was held that the
scheme being contractual in nature, the provisions of the Indian
Contract Act, 1872 would apply and, thus, an offer
made by an employee could be withdrawn by him before it was accepted. No
exception, thus, can be taken to the findings of the Division Bench of the High
Court. However, there cannot be any doubt or dispute whatsoever that even if
the termination of services of the Respondents herein was found to be illegal,
they could be directed to be continued in service until they reached their age
of superannuation. Respondent No.1, Banshi Lal, had already reached his age of
superannuation. So far as the other Respondents are concerned, however, they
would be entitled to continue in service till they reach the age of
however, not disputed that they have received a huge amount in terms of the
voluntary retirement scheme pursuant to the observations made by this Court.
The amount payable to them by or on behalf of the Appellant, thus, must be
directed to be adjusted with the amounts of back wages, current wages or the
future wages, if any.
Appellant shall be entitled to transfer the Respondents to the mines which are
working on such post or posts which they had been holding on the relevant
dates. In the event, it is found that the Appellant has paid any excess amount
to the said employees, it is made clear that the future salary payable to them
would be adjusted from the amount which had already been received by them, if
Respondents are directed to join their posts at the transferred places
forthwith, but not later than 15 days from the date of communication made to
them in that behalf by the competent authority of the Appellant.
appeal is disposed of with the aforementioned observations and directions. No