Apex court clarifies VRS ruling

The Supreme Court last week clarified that those who had opted for the voluntary retirement scheme (VRS) and then withdrawn their applications before the last date for acceptance by the management are entitled to continue with full benefits if they have not derived any benefit from the scheme before the withdrawal of applications.

This explanation was given by a three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice VN Khare on a batch of review petitions moved by Punjab National Bank, State Bank of Patiala and Punjab & Sind Bank.

In the main judgment, the court had upheld the right of the employee to withdraw his option from the VRS before it was accepted in writing by the competent authority.

This was subject to an exception that if the employees had accepted part of the benefit under the scheme, they would not be entitled to withdraw their offer to retire.

In the review petitions, some banks had deposited amounts due to the employees accepting the scheme in their savings accounts.

Some beneficiaries withdrew these amounts from the accounts and then took back their offer under the VRS. Such employees cannot withdraw from the scheme, according to the court.

Some others did not take any amount from the deposit made by the employers. The Supreme Court said their withdrawal from the scheme should be accepted by the employers.

Some employees had been compulsorily retired during the controversy. The court asked the employers to take them back and pay their full wages during the period when they were not allowed to work. They should be reinstated in their respective posts with continuity in service, the court said.

But such employees should make full refund of the amou-nts deposited in their accounts by the employers with interest.

Such full refund would be the condition precedent for their reinstatement.

The court rejected the argument of the government that since they had not worked during the interim period, the principle of "no work, no pay" should be applied in their cases.

"They were out of their jobs for no fault of theirs. Even otherwise, the party in breach of contract can hardly seek any equitable relief," the Supreme Court said.