The prayer essentially was to do the needful within such time as may be determined by the Court.
The terms were set out in Clause 3.3.
On 27.10.2003 there was a meeting of the recognized Union functionaries with the functionaries of the appellant company.
The Industrial Court rejected the objection and held that the companyplaint was maintainable.
A request was made to extend the time of VRS upto 30.11.2003 to accept the option.
The loan amounts were adjusted and numberobjection was raised.
The said scheme was floated on 1.10.2003.
A Writ Petition was filed on 30.5.2003 with a prayer to enforce the VRS and alternatively it was prayed that the appellant company be directed to independently float and pay according to VRS.
On 1.7.2004 numberice of motion was taken by officers of the appellant company and on 2.7.2004 by the workers.
As numbered above, the Division Bench also affirmed the views of the Industrial Court and the learned Single Judge.
Complaint was filed under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 in short the Trade Union Act .
By order dated 8.7.2003, the High Court directed the appellant company to companysider and float the VRS.
In support of the appeal, learned companynsel for the appellants submitted that unfortunately both the Industrial Court and the High Court did number companysider the effect of several judgments of this Court which had direct bearing on the present issue.
One Sada Parab represented the Union of workers.
Separate cheques were issued but the respondents refused to accept the cheques so far as they related to the VRS scheme.
On 29.1.2004, applications of 570 workers for VRS were accepted and payment was to be made by 29.4.2004.
The High Court also did number companysider those aspects.
Writ petition was filed by the appellant and the learned Single Judge dismissed the same.
Subsequently, there appears to be change of mind and after acceptance, because of financial difficulties there was delay in implementation of the VRS.
Majority of the workers accepted the cheques without demur.
Objection was filed by the present appellant taking the stand that in view of various decisions of this Court companyplaint was number maintainable.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellants.
This was companyfirmed by the Unions Advocate letter dated 29.10.2003.
The schedule for payments was also fixed.
The modalities for implementation of the VRS were fixed for both the officers and the workers.
2431 OF 2007 Arising out of S.L.P. C No.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
A request was made by the employees for splitting in each case the cheque amount i.e. VRS amount and on 5.5.2005 the writ petition was withdrawn.
In the companynter affidavit, the resolutions were referred to.
Some of the employees formed a new trade union called Union of Centaur Tulip Employees.
6787 of 2006 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Factual background as presented by the appellants is as follows An agreement was entered into between the appellants and the Hotel Corporation of India relating to purchase of hotel called Centaur Hotel, Juhu Beach, on 31.3.2003.
On 11.3.2002, an agreement was entered into wherein it was stipulated that Voluntary Retirement Scheme in short VRS shall be introduced within one year from the transfer dated 31.5.2002 i.e by 31.5.2003.
