http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1807 of 2001

PETITIONER: Hindustan Copper Ltd. & Anr.                                     

RESPONDENT: Banshi Lal & Ors.                                                        

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/12/2005

BENCH: S.B. Sinha & P.P. Naolekar

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

S.B. SINHA, J :

       The 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options had been exercised in  printed proforma which contained a clause that such option once exercised  could not be withdrawn;  their offers stood accepted.

       Having 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.           

By reason 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Rajasthan  High Court opined that the stand of the Appellant Company was not correct, as  the concerned employees had withdrawn their offers before the same were  accepted.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 :

"Consequently, 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  closed.

       Our attention was further drawn to an order dated 12.03.2001 passed by  this Court which is as under :

       "Leave is granted.  Heard learned counsel for the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

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 under : " Sl.No. Name Date of Birth Date of Sup- erannuation  on attaining of 58 years  age  Amount paid  under VRS  Payment  Date 1. Banshi Lal 05.11.43 30.11.2001   63608.20 20.4.2002 2. Gyarshi Lal 27.09.50 30.09.2008 173146.80 23.4.2002 3. Hardeva  21.05.49 30.09.2007 172015.50 30.4.2002 4. Kishan Lal 26.11.50 30.11.2008 169966.00 30.4.2002 5. Nahnuram 26.11.52 30.11.2010 163304.10 23.4.2002 6. Chokha Ram 03.04.50 30.04.2008 178788.00 30.4.2002                                                                                               "   

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

       Mr.Vijay Hansaria, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the  Respondents, on the other hand, supported the judgment of the High Court.

       The 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.  O.P. 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 superannuation.   

       It is, 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.   

       The 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 any.                    The 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.

       This appeal is disposed of with the aforementioned observations and  directions.  No costs.