High CourtDivision BenchAppeal disposed of.

Hindustan Copper Ltd. and Anr. v. Banshi Lal and Ors.

Case / Petition Number:Civil Appeal No. 1807 of 2001
Neutral Citation:2005 (Supp.) 5 S.C.R.

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court
Hon'ble Judges
  • S.B. Sinha
  • P.P. Naolekar
Judgment Date
2005-12-08
Court Decision / Holding
The appeal is allowed in part. An offer can be withdrawn by the employee before it is accepted, as held in Bank of India v. Swarnakar, and the VRS scheme is contractual under the Indian Contract Act. However, even if termination were illegal, the respondents could be continued in service until the age of superannuation, and the amounts paid under VRS must be adjusted against back wages or other sums due. The appellant is entitled to transfer the respondents to units where posts exist, and the respondents must join within 15 days. No costs.
Final Disposition
Appeal disposed of.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Hindustan Copper Ltd.
  • Anr.

Respondents

  • Banshi Lal
  • Gyarshi Lal
  • Hardeva
  • Kishan Lal
  • Nahnuram
  • ChokhaRam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Deba Prasad Mukherjee

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Vijay Hansaria
  • • Ms. Minakshi Sarma
  • • Kanishk Gupta
  • • Sunil Kumar Jain

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Civil Appeal arising from the closure of the Dariba Copper Project of Hindustan Copper Ltd., a Government of India undertaking. When the Dariba mine was to be closed, the company offered nearby employees a choice between transferring to other units or enrolling in the 1993 Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS). Of 241 employees at the Dariba Mine, 112 opted for VRS; ten later withdrew their offers. The option form contained a clause stating that such option, once exercised, could not be withdrawn, and management treated withdrawal as acceptance. A writ petition challenging the decision was dismissed by a Single Judge; the Division Bench allowed the appeal, holding that the employees had withdrawn before acceptance and thus were entitled to reinstatement with back wages. The appellant argued that the High Court’s directions were erroneous, particularly since the mines were largely closed and re-employment was not practicable. The Supreme Court, however, held that an offer could indeed be withdrawn by an employee before it was accepted and that the VRS scheme was contractual in nature; the Act applies. It further held that even if termination were illegal, the employees could be continued in service until the age of superannuation, and the amounts already paid under the VRS should be adjusted against back wages and other sums due. The Court directed transfer of the respondents to units where posts existed and ordered them to join within 15 days. The appeal was disposed of with no costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Indian Contract Act, 1872 (Offer and Acceptance)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contend that the High Court erred in directing reinstatement. The option form’s clause declaring that the option, once exercised, could not be withdrawn should be given effect to, and the scheme is contractual in nature; withdrawal after exercising the option is impermissible. Given the extensive closure of mines, re-employment opportunities are limited, and the company should not be forced into reinstatement with back wages beyond what is legally required. The decision in Bank of India v. Swarnakar is cited to emphasize the irrevocability of options where accepted, and the onus is on proving acceptance.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that they withdrew their offers before acceptance, and the Division Bench rightly directed that they be treated as having continued in service, with consideration of back wages and adjustment of VRS benefits. They argue that even if termination could be viewed as illegal, they could be continued in service until the age of superannuation and transferred to units where posts existed; the VRS payments already made should be adjusted against any sums due, and the court should ensure proper relief to the employees.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Bank of India and Ors. v. O. P. Swarnakar and Ors. etc.[2003] 2 SCC 721PositiveThree-judge bench held the scheme is contractual and withdrawal before acceptance is permissible; the present case relies on this proposition.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Hindustan Copper Ltd. and Anr. v. Banshi Lal and Ors. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# HINDUSTAN COPPER LTD. AND ANR. # _v._ BANSHI LAL AND ORS. # DECEMBER 8, 2005 # [S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] ## _Contract Act, 1872:_ _Offer and acceptance-Closure of Unit-Offer to employees to either opt for VRS or get transferred to another unit-Employees opting for VRS--_ C _Later seeking withdrawal of same-Employer not allowing the withdrawalHigh Court ordering reinstatement on ground that offer was withdrawn before its acceptance-Challenge to-Held: The offer made by an employee could be withdrawn by him before it was accepted-The scheme being contractual in nature, the provisions of Indian Contract Act would apply._ D _Service Law-VRS-Offer of VRS withdrawn by employee before its acceptance-Effect of_ On closure of a unit of Appellant-Government Undertaking, the respondents-employees working therein were offered to either opt for the Voluntary Retirement Scheme or get transferred to another unit Respondent- E employees opted for voluntary retirement However, later they withdrew their offers. Appellant did not allow respondents to withdraw in view of the stipulation contained in the option from filled up by the respondents that the option once exercised could not be withdrawn. Aggrieved respondents filed Writ Petition which was dismissed by Single Judge. Division Bench allowed F the appeal holding that since respondents had withdrawn their offers before the same were accepted, they are entitled to reinstatement with back wages. Hence the present appeal. ## Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: The offer made by an employee could be withdrawn by him before G it was accepted. The scheme was contractual in nature, the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 would apply. No exception, thus, can be tak-en 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 665 H 666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. _5_ S.C.R. A the Respondents herein was found to be illegal, they could be directed to be continued in service until they reached their age of superannuation. Respondents have already received a huge amount in terms of the voluntary retirement scheme. 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 B entitled to transfer the Respondents to the units which are working on such post or posts which they had been holding on the relevant dates. (668-D-H; 669-A) _Bank ofindia and Ors. etc._ v. _O.P. Swarnakur and Ors. etc.,_ [2003) 2 sec 721, relied on. c CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1807 of2001. From the Judgment and Order dated 27.7.2000 of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B.C.S.A. No. 1387of1997. Deba Prasad Mukherjee for the Appellants. D Vijay Hansaria, Ms. Minakshi Sarma, Kanishk Gupta and Sunil Kumar Jain for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.B. SINHA, J. The Appellant is a Government of India Undertaking. E 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 F 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 of241 employees working in the said Dariba Mine, 112 opted for voluntary G retirement under the scheme. I 0 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. H Having regard to the aforementioned stand of the Appellant, a writ 667 HINDUSTAN COPPER LTD. _v._ BANSHI LAL [SINHA, J.] 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, aci::epted 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, B 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 C 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 D 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 parties. The E 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 F 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 : G H 668 ||668|||||| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| ||668||SUPREME COURT|SUPREME COURTREPORTS[2005] SUPP._5_S.C.R.||| |A|"SI.|"SI.Name|Dateof|DateofSup-|Amountpaid|Amount| ||No.||Birth|erannuation ·|underYRS|| |||||onattaining||| |||||of58years||| |||||age||| |B|I.|BanshiLal|05.ll.43|30.11.2001|63608.20|20.4.2002| ||2.|GyarshiLal|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._|KishanLal|26.11.50|30.ll.2008|169966.00|30.4.2002| |c|c<br>5.|Nahnuram|26.11.52|30.11.2010|163304.10|23.4.2002| ||6.|ChokhaRam|03.04.50|30.04.2008|178788.00|30.4.2002| |||||||"| Mr. Vijay Hansaria, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of D 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 tilled up by the employees that the option once exercised cannot be withdrawn stands concluded by a E three-Judge Bench Judgment of this Court in _Bank of India and Ors. etc._ v. _0. P. Swarnakar and Ors 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 F 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 sup-erannuation. Respondent No. I, Banshi Lal, had already reached his age of superannuation. So far as the other Respondents are concerned, however, they would be G 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 obsei;vations 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 H wages or the future wages, if any. 669 HINDUSTAN COPPER LTD. _v._ BANSHI LAL {SINHA, J.] The Appellant shall be entitled to transfer the Respondents to the A 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. B 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 C directions. No costs. D.G. Appeal disposed of.