Mumbai, May 4: When 43-year-old Anthony Nadar was offered a voluntary retirement scheme (VRS) with over Rs 5 lakh as benefits, he accepted, albeit after some convincing from his supervisor at Siemens. Six months later, a disillusioned Nadar describes VRS as a slow poison, having realised that the Rs 4,20,000 he received is nowhere near the Rs 11,000 he would have earned per month for the next 16 years.``I knew the money was not comparable, but I was told that I might not get these benefits later as the company's future was uncertain,'' says Nadar.
But a landmark judgement of the Bombay High Court on April 17 will ensure that employees like Nadar cannot be lured by the VRS carrot, their feelings manipulated and jobs snatched on the flimsy pretexts cited by their companies.
``So far, managements used to announce the VRS and subsequently create an atmosphere of insecurity, forcing employees to accept the golden handshake. This judgement now gives employees' unions a weapon to block VRS if it is not intheir interests,'' explains Satyajeet Bhatkal, a lawyer who represented the unions in the case.
The judgement was passed on two petitions filed by the Kamani Employees Union and the Blue Star Employees Union, which contended that their employees had been deliberately misled on the provisions of the VRS being offered.
The Blue Star union said the VRS notice released by the company contained only selected portions of scheme, and that vital information concerning its implications had been withheld.
The judgement now says conditions for VRS can be fixed by collective bargaining between management and the unions; it stipulates a mandatory 21-day period between the scheme's announcement and the company's acceptance of its employees' applications; and bars companies from withholding details so that employees can make an informed decison. It has, in effect, robbed companies of their favourite tool for retrenchment. Jubilant unions have been distributing copies of the judegment among emoployees but corporatesare still wondering how to trim their unweildly workforces. Charged with using VRS to retrench employees, companies are reluctant to comment on the judgement. Some, however, deny that VRS has been used as a coercive tool. Over the last nine years, nearly 1,600 employees have quit Blue Star after opting for VRS. S K Mahajan, senior general manager (Personnel), admits that VRS schemes were launched ``as and when the company felt it had surplus staff'' but insists that no one has been forced to accept the scheme. Adds A B Nadkarni, director (Personnel), Siemens, ``VRS has been launched keeping the company's business interests in view. We recognise the importance of seeking the union's support to turn the company around.'' But former union leader Anil Kharkar, who accepted the golden handshake at Siemens a few months ago, says as soon as the scheme was implemented, the management told employees that the company was running up losses. ``They would make some workers sit idle by introducing things like amulti-machine scheme. For instance, if two workers operated a machine each, they would ask just one to operate both. Or else, they would force skilled workers to take on jobs meant for lower grade employees,'' Kharkar reveals.
Prior to the judgement, employees would apply for VRS as soon as it was announced. However, Justice F I Rebello's ruling says at least 21 days must elapse between announcing the scheme and accepting its employees' applications. During this period, unions and employees can scrutinise the scheme and oppose what they feel is unsuitable. Many accept VRS due to ill-health, family commitments and boredom. There is also the not-so-subtle propaganda about the employees' `uncertain future'. Sometimes, the lure of lump-sum benefits is too tempting to resist. As Blue Star's S K Mahajan says, ``The company does not mind paying the employee a few lakh rupees more because we get relief by divesting surplus staff.'' But Arvind Tapole, former general secretary of the Voltas union, points out thatgiven the inflation rate, a worker's salary could double in five to six years. ``He loses this money in the long run and realises that the VRS was just a trap,'' says Tapole. Uday Mahale, secretary of the Siemens union, says most employees ``chosen'' for VRS are over 50 years old and their chances of re-employment are virtually nil. But that is not always so. Shyam Maheshwari, vice-president of the Blue Star Employees Union, says that after accepting VRS, nearly one-third of the company's employees return to work on a contract basis. ``A small percentage of these `retired' employees even return on a daily wage basis.''
Said Gautam Modi, vice-president of the Kamani Employees Union, ``The judgement should force industries to take a serious view of industrial re-structuring and accept that they cannot get rid of workers in this fashion.'' Adds Mahajan: ``Liberalisation and re-structuring are two sides of the same coin. If the organisation needs to control manpower and a worker wants to accept VRS, there is noreason why a union should object.''
S K Kulkarni, DGM, (Industrial Relations), Crompton Greaves, says his company has never used VRS as retrenchment tool. ``We implement VRS every year. Employees usually accept and leave due to health or family problems. As we have always been open about the scheme's conditions, the judgement does not affect us at all,'' he says.
Copyright © 1998 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.
