Workman is estopped from challenging disengagement after voluntarily applying for retirement and accepting scheme benefits.

The management of the respondent company introduced a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) in 1999, which expired on 31.03.2000.

On 23.04.2001, the appellant-workman applied for VRS but later requested to continue in service, which the management allowed.

Eight months later, on 10.12.2001, the workman submitted a second VRS application; it was accepted, and he was relieved on 15.12.2001.

He received a VRS payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- and other retiral dues.

In 2005, nearly four years later, the workman challenged his disengagement before the Labour Court.

The Labour Court awarded him Rs. 10,00,000/- as additional compensation, citing that the VRS was not in subsistence in 2001.

The learned Single Judge of the High Court subsequently set aside the Labour Court's award.

This Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) is filed by the workman against that reversal.

1. Whether a workman, after voluntarily applying for retirement and accepting the subsequent financial benefits under a VRS scheme, is estopped from challenging the legality of his disengagement.

2. Whether the acceptance of a VRS application after the formal expiry of the scheme renders the termination of service illegal or improper.

The court applied the equitable doctrine of estoppel, which prevents a party from asserting a right or claim that contradicts their previous actions or conduct.

The court also relied on the principle that the voluntary nature of an application and the subsequent acceptance of terminal benefits (consideration) creates a binding conclusion to the employer-employee relationship, precluding a later claim of "illegal discharge" under industrial law.

The Court rejected the appellant's contention that the management committed an illegality by accepting a VRS application after the formal scheme had lapsed in March 2000.

The Court observed that the workman had twice sought voluntary retirement of his own volition—the second time specifically eight months after being permitted to continue in service.

Crucially, the Court highlighted that the workman not only accepted the special VRS payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- and other retiral dues but waited for nearly four years before approaching the Labour Court.

The Court reasoned that once a workman submits a voluntary application, accepts the relief from service, and pockets the financial benefits associated with the scheme, he is legally estopped from later contending that the disengagement was improper.

The court found that the lack of a "subsisting" formal scheme was irrelevant given the workman's conduct and the acceptance of the specific VRS amount.

The court held that the workman was estopped from challenging his disengagement after having accepted the VRS benefits.

Consequently, the order of the learned Single Judge setting aside the Labour Court's award of Rs. 10,00,000/- was upheld, and the reference was rejected.