This would give the employees sufficient time to study the provisions of the VRS and weigh its implications, with a minimm 21 days elapsing since the company issues the notice announcing the scheme.

The court has also ruled that companies are bound to explain the scheme in its entirety to its employees so that they can make an informed decision on whether to opt for the scheme in the first place.

The judgement was delivered by Justice F I Rebello on April 17 on two appeals filed by the Kamani Employees' Union and the Blue Star Employees' Federation against orders of the Industrial Court dated September 25, 1997, and October 24, 1997, respectively.

In his judgement, Justice Rebello states that the VRS is ``essentially an inducement by the employer to theworkman, ie, a bait dangled before the workman. Whether the workman accepts it or not would depend on the circumstances existing at that stage. It is not a voluntary retirement as normally understood. It is a retirement on invitation and subject to the terms of the VRS.'' The principal contention of the unions was that the VRS violated provision 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, which states that if an employer proposes to effect any change in the conditions of service (in this case VRS) applicable to any workman, the employer must issue a notice disclosing the nature of the proposed change. The change can be effected only after 21 days since the notice has been given.

In its appeal, the Kamani Employees Union stated that KEC International Limited introduced the VRS on August 8, 1997. At the time, there were 690 workmen, of which 645 opted for the scheme by making applications between August 29, 1997, and August 31, 1997. The company paid the employees their dues, namely provident fund, gratuity, leaveencashment, etc, under the scheme by cheques dated August 31, 1997. Of these, 102 workers informed the company by identical applications that they now wanted to withdraw their applications as they were made under misunderstanding and without looking into all the consequences, the appeal states.

The other appeal, filed by the All India Blue Star Employees Federation, says Blue Star Limited implemented VRS between September 1 and October 30, 1997. However, the notice put up by the company informing its employees of the scheme only included selected portions of the offer, thereby withholding relevant information. Since the employees later claimed they had not been fully informed of the contents of the scheme, they invoked Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act.

The high court has temporarily restricted KEC International Limited from acting on the VRS application while simultaneously ruling that the company cannot refuse to allot work and pay wages to enlisted workers till further notice. The judgementalso distinguishes between employees who have encashed cheques given by the company and those who have not. If the employee has not yet accepted money by encashing the cheque, he is deemed to be in service.

But if an employee who has taken the benefit and chosen to walk away cannot be forced to return nor can the employer be told to take him back, the judgement points out. Advocates Anand Grover and P L Mahadik and Satyajeet Bhatkar represented both unions. KEC International Limited was represented by J P Cama with Paul Paulose and K P Anilkumar. Blue Star Limited was represented by P K Rele and Piyush Shah.