- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51505 WP No. 7946 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 7946 OF 2022 (L-RES) BETWEEN: MANAGEMENT OF M/S. SURETEX PROPHYLACTICS (INDIA) LIMITED, PLOT NO.74, KIADB INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, JIGANI, 2ND PHASE, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-560105. REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER-HR MR. P.R.UMESH. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.N.MURTHY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE AND SMT. ROOPASRI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MRS. MANJULA B., W/O. K.V.SURESH BABU, GRAND FIELD LAYOUT, HOMMADEVANAHALLI, GOTTIGERE POST, BANNERUGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560083. 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S B MUKKANNAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI RAJENDRA K.R., AGA FOR R2) Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51505 WP No. 7946 of 2022 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 18.11.2025, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS PRONOUNCED AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri. S.N. Murthy, Senior counsel on behalf of Sri.Somashekar, for the petitioner, Sri.S.B.Mukkannappa, counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri.Rajendra. K.R., AGA for respondent No. 2, has appeared in person. 2. The petition averments are as follows. The first respondent joined the services of the petitioner company as a Trainee with effect from August 23, 1999. To reduce the surplus manpower, the company introduced a Voluntary Retirement Scheme in 2009. After several rounds of discussions with the permanent workmen, the company decided to introduce the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Under the scheme, the company gave an amount of Rs. 1,56,160/- as a voluntary retirement amount to the workman apart from other legal dues. The respondent received an amount of Rs.1,66,202/- towards gratuity, early bird incentive, seniority - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51505 WP No. 7946 of 2022 incentive, etc. In all, the first respondent received Rs.3,22,362/-. 3. It is stated that under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 86 workmen submitted their applications to retire on various dates from 5th of October 2009 to 10th of October 2009. The company accepted the applications submitted by the workmen on various dates and relieved them from service after settling their accounts. The company settled the accounts of the workmen in full, including early-bird and seniority incentives, gratuity, leave encashment bonus, etc., apart from the voluntary retirement amount. The amount was paid through individual account payee cheques to the workmen. After accepting the voluntary retirement, the individual workman and the management signed a settlement under Section 18(1) of the I.D. Act, 1947. 4. Alleging there was a forceful resignation, the first respondent workmen raised a dispute before the conciliation officer after a lapse of eight years. The petitioner filed objections and contended that the workmen had signed a settlement under 18(1) of the I.D. Act with the petitioner after - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51505 WP No. 7946 of 2022 receiving full and final settlement of accounts. It was also brought to the notice of the conciliation officer that a stale dispute had been raised after eight years. On failure of conciliation, the Government referred the matter for adjudication before the Labor Court. Aggrieved by the order of reference, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. 6. Sri.S.N.Murthy, Senior counsel, in presenting his arguments, strenuously urged that the stale dispute cannot be a subject matter of reference under Section 10 of I.D. Act. The power under Section 10 of the I.D. The act to refer a dispute for adjudication should not be exercised in respect of stale claims. He argued by saying that the reference is made eight years after the workmen accepted voluntary retirement. Urging other contentions, he submits that the order of reference may be quashed. 7. He placed reliance on the following decisions: 1. THE NEDUNGADI BANK LTD., V/S. K.P.MADHAVAN KUTTY AND OTHERS, REPORTED IN (2000)2 SCC 455. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51505 WP No. 7946 of 2022 2. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA V/S. THE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND OTHERS, REPORTED IN (2009) IILLJ 269. 3. PRABHAKAR V/S. JOINT DIRECTOR, SERICULTURE DEPARTMENT AND ORS., REPORTED IN (2015)15 SCC 1. 4. NATIONAL ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LTD., V/S. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS., REPORTED IN (2000)1 SCC 371. 8. AGA submits that a detailed statement of objections is filed, and the same may be taken note of. 9. AGA and Sri.S.B.Mukkannappa jointly submitted that the workman raised the dispute before the conciliation officer, alleging that he was forced to sign the VRS scheme, which amounts to termination; when the statement of the workman and the management was in dispute, the matter was considered as an industrial dispute and hence, the Government is justified in referring a dispute for adjudication. 10. They further submitted that there is no provision restricting the period for raising the dispute under the ID Act. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51505 WP No. 7946 of 2022 The Law does not prescribe any time limit for the appropriate Government to exercise its power under the ID Act to make a reference. Counsel vehemently contended that the management had failed to establish in the conciliation that there was no forceful acceptance of VRS. And the reference made by the Government is legal and within the provisions of law. Urging other grounds, they prayed for the dismissal of the Writ Petition. 11. Sri.S.B.Mukkannappa, counsel, placed reliance on the following decisions: 1. M/S AVON SERVICES PRODUCTION AGENCIES (P) LTD., V/S INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, HARYANA AND ORS., REPORTED IN (1979)1 SCC 1. 2. TELCO CONVOY DRIVERS MAZDOOR SANGH AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS, REPORTED IN (1989)3 SCC 271. 3. S.M.NILAJKAR AND OTHERS VS. TELECOM DISTRICT MANAGER, KARNATAKA, REPORTED IN (2003)4 SCC 27. 4. RAGHUBIR SINGH VS. GENERAL MANAGER, HARYANA ROADWAYS, HISSAR, REPORTED IN (2014)10 SCC 301. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51505 WP No. 7946 of 2022 5. PRABHAKAR V/S. JOINT DIRECTOR, SERICULTURE DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER, REPORTED IN (2015) 15 SCC 1. 6. M/S BATA INDIA LIMITED VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER PASSED IN W.P.NO.47002/2015 (L- TER) DISPOSED OF ON 22.02.2021. 7. M/S BATA INDIA LIMITED VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER PASSED IN W.A.NO.504/2021 (L-TER) DISPOSED OF ON 29.07.2021. 12. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers and the records furnished by the AGA with care. 13. The facts are sufficiently said and do not require reiteration. The issue revolves within a narrow compass and relates to the reference order made by the government. 14. This is an interesting case of a claim raised by a former employee regarding his retirement scheme, long after the cessation of his employment relationship and acceptance of benefits. As we all know that the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, popularly known as VRS, is the process by which the workmen voluntarily end their employment relationship. There will be a Cessation of the Employer-Employee Relationship, i.e., - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51505 WP No. 7946 of 2022 upon the acceptance of the VRS and associated benefits, the legal jural relationship between the employer and employee generally comes to an end. The legal principle of Aprobate and Reprobate generally prevents a person from taking inconsistent positions; one cannot accept benefits under a scheme (VRS) and then later challenge its validity or claim ongoing employee status. 15. Reverting to the facts of the case, the first respondent voluntarily retired and accepted associated benefits. Strangely, after a lapse of almost eight years, he raised a dispute alleging a forceful resignation. The government ordered a reference. This is unsustainable in law. The reasons are apparent. The reference for adjudication is made without satisfying the precondition of an existing or apprehended industrial dispute. In the complete absence of an existing or at least "apprehended" industrial dispute, the government could not have passed an order of reference of a faded dispute for adjudication. The first respondent accepts the benefits of a transaction (VRS package) and then challenges its validity later. By accepting the full settlement, the first respondent is - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51505 WP No. 7946 of 2022 deemed to have waived all previous or pending claims. The underlying legal principle is that while the law of limitation does not strictly apply to these proceedings, the government must still determine if a dispute is a "live" or "existing" dispute, keeping in mind that very stale claims are generally not encouraged or allowed due to the unsettling effect on employers' financial arrangements. The Government can refuse to refer a dispute if it is considered "stale" or has faded due to a long, unexplained lapse of time. The rationale is to avoid unsettling the employer's financial arrangements and ensure industrial peace. A formal way to state that the government cannot refer a claim for adjudication after a significant, unexplained delay is to say the government may not refer a stale dispute or stale claim for adjudication, as the dispute would be considered to have faded with the efflux of time. 16. A workman who opts for voluntary retirement and accepts all monetary benefits generally cannot seek a reference for an industrial dispute related to their retirement. This is because the voluntary retirement constitutes a full and final settlement, severing the employer-employee relationship by - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51505 WP No. 7946 of 2022 mutual consent and waiver of future claims. This is a perfect example of a stale and non-existent dispute and a remarkable instance of a stale and non-existing dispute raised by workman eight years after voluntarily retiring and accepting associated benefits. 17. It is the contention of both the appropriate Government and the workman that the present petition is premature and that the Government, in exercising its power of reference under Section 10 of the Act, lacks the jurisdiction to definitively determine whether the dispute is stale or time-barred at that initial stage. This contention must necessarily fail. The reason is simple. The administrative authority of the government includes the preliminary power to assess whether a matter is a bona fide industrial dispute and has not faded with the efflux of time, thus allowing it to decline reference on grounds of staleness or lack of an existing dispute. The government ought to have refused a reference on the ground that the claim is stale and the industrial dispute has ceased to exist. The government has failed to have regard to the relevant considerations and disregarded relevant matters. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51505 WP No. 7946 of 2022 Because of the foregoing reasons, I deem it proper to quash the order of reference. 18. Counsel for the respective parties placed reliance on several decisions, but I do not think the law is in doubt. Each decision turns on its own facts. The present case is also examined in light of the decisions referred to above. 19. The writ of certiorari is ordered. The order of reference dated 20.04.21 vide Annexure- D is quashed. 20. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. Because of the disposal of the writ petition, the interim order granted by this court, if any, stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications, and interim directions, if are disposed of. SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.:1.19