Meanwhile, in response to the ministry's missive, the airline's management has clarified that the two schemes are not voluntary retirement schemes (VRS) but schemes launched to reduce establishment costs. The rationale behind the clarification being that since both the schemes are not "VRS", the question of the board having to approve a VRS doesnot arise. The response also says that the two schemes were brought up at the September 8th board meeting under "any other business' and were presented very briefly for the information of the board only. Thus, the schemes did not generate more than a passing discussion since there was no specific agenda item covering their inclusion.

However, according to sources, at the September 8th meeting, the board had only given a go ahead to further streamline the schemes and work out a detailed set of implications. The management, however, seems to have jumped the cue and got its human resources department to officially launch the scheme.

Senior ministry officials also pointed that the mixing up of the nomenclature of the schemes does not take away the fact that both schemes are a policy matter involving over 18,000 employees and so require specific board approval. What has really disturbed the ministry is that the management has not given the board a chance to have an indepth and proper examination and discussionof the schemes which can have far-reaching implications. Industry observers also believe that the deadlock between the ministry and the management is related to the bypassing of the board in announcing the schemes by the management.