- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30864-DB WA No. 539 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT APPEAL NO. 539 OF 2024 (S-DIS) BETWEEN: SRI. J.V MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, S/O LATE J.M.P VEERAPPA, RESIDING AT NO.49, LIG 1ST PHASE, K.H.B COLONY, GOPALA, SHIMOGA-577 205, …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MUKKANNAPPA S.B, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHAIRMAN, STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD., ISPAT BHAVAN, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 003 2. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR VISVESWARAYA IRON & STEEL PLANT LTD., [UNIT OF SAIL], BHADRAVATHI-577 301 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER VISVESWARAYA IRON & STEEL PLANT LTD., [UNIT OF SAIL], BHADRAVATHI-577 301 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R1 & R3 - SERVED, UNREPRESENTED) Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30864-DB WA No. 539 of 2024 THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.09.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No-2283/2022 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WP No- 2283/2022 FILED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) This intra Court appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 08.09.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.2283/2012, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. 2. We have heard the learned counsel Sri.S.B.Mukkannappa for the appellant. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition without considering the aspect that the petitioner has submitted his application for voluntary retirement on 14.07.2001. The said application was served to the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30864-DB WA No. 539 of 2024 respondents on 17.07.2001. However, thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation for withdrawing the voluntary retirement on 24.07.2001 through certificate of posting and RPAD, which was served on the employer on 01.08.2001. In the meantime, i.e., on 31.07.2001, the employer relieved the petitioner without providing him any opportunity to have his say about his request for withdrawing the voluntary retirement and without considering the representation for withdrawal. As such, the employer violated the principles of natural justice. He also contended that the employer paid all the sums that the petitioner was entitled to under voluntary retirement scheme subsequently after reliving him from the work. This aspect of the matter is not properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the appeal. 4. We have carefully perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition and also the order passed by the Labour Court in IDR.No.9/2025. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30864-DB WA No. 539 of 2024 5. While dismissing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has observed in paragraphs 4 and 5 as under: "4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was relieved on 31.07.2001. The petitioner was paid all the sums that he became entitled to under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme totally amounting to Rs.6,55,021/- and Rs.57,216/- as arrears of wages and admittedly, the petitioner had encashed the said amount without any protest. If the petitioner, who claims to have withdrawn his request for voluntary retirement, nevertheless, had proceeded to encash the benefits that accrued because of his voluntary retirement, he cannot be permitted to contend that he had not retired voluntarily. 5. The Tribunal, on consideration of all the relevant factors, has come to the conclusion that the assertion of the petitioner he had not retired voluntarily and he had made a request for withdrawal of the voluntary retirement could not be accepted. I find no infirmity in the award of the Tribunal necessitating interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition is, therefore dismissed." - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30864-DB WA No. 539 of 2024 6. It could be gathered from the records that the written request dated 24.07.2001 for withdrawal of the application of the appellant seeking voluntary retirement, which was sent through registered post, was received by the employer only on 01.08.2001 i.e., after the acceptance of his request for voluntary retirement and after issuance of Office Order which stated that he would be relieved on 31.07.2001. That apart, the appellant without protest has encashed all the benefits that accrued on his voluntary retirement after his reliving from service. Further, it is pertinent to note that on 27.07.2001, the appellant reported to duty i.e., after submitting his request for withdrawal of the voluntary retirement. However, he failed to enquire about the status of his request for withdrawal of voluntary retirement, nor he made any attempt to submit the copy of said request personally to the employer. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly held that when the petitioner, who claimed to have withdrawn his request - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30864-DB WA No. 539 of 2024 for voluntary retirement, without any protest had encashed the benefits, cannot be permitted to contend that he had not voluntarily retired. Hence, interference with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is not called for. Accordingly, writ appeal lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed. SD/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11