Company in obtaining the alleged voluntary v. Union raised the demand seeking their

A evidence for its detailed examination and scrutiny. The fact that certain documents were sought to be sum moned at the instance of first respondent-Union during the conciliation proceedings from the appellant-Com pany by the Conciliation Officer which were not pro- 8 duced by it is one more important factor which is re quired to be considered by the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10(1)(d) read with the Third Schedule of the Act in exercise of its original jurisdiction to resolve the dis puted questions of fact. Further, the VRS produced on record by the Management gives it the discretion to ar bitrarily fix the compensation varying from Rs.50,000/ to Rs. 7, 11,000/-, which if proved, would be considered as arbitrary and there would be a grave miscarriage of justice to the concerned workmen. This aspect of the matter has been ignored by the Deputy Labour Com missioner, who has erroneously refused to make an or der of reference to the Industrial Tribunal for its adjudi cation of the existing industrial dispute. Further, there E were serious allegations made against the appellant Company by the workmen regarding the.alleged coer cion, undue influence and force used on them for ob taining their signatures on blank papers, which needs to be examined very carefully by the Industrial Tribunal F after recording evidence from both the parties. Prima facie, the absence of documentary evidence produced by the appellant-Company to show that the VRS was framed by it and converting the signatures of the con cerned workmen obtained on the blank papers amounts G to forced termination of the services of the concerned workmen which is a disputed question of fact which requires adjudication by the competent Industrial Tri bunal and therefore, the demand regarding the alleged termination of the concerned workmen is required to be H referred to the Industrial Tribunal by the State Govern- ARIANE ORGACHEM PVT. LTD v. WYETH EMPLOYEES UNION & ORS. 147 ment. The non consideration of this aspect of the mat- A ter in the order passed by the Deputy Labour Commis sioner highlighting only the factual aspect pleaded by . the appellant-Company unilaterally and not referring to the facts pleaded on behalf of the concerned workmen by the first respondent-Union is once again totally B marred by non application of mind on the part of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, apart from the fact that the Deputy Labour Commissioner has no competency to exercise his power under the provisions of Section 10(1)(d) of the Act, either to make reference or to refuse C to make reference to the Industrial Tribunal. [Paras 23, . 24] [164-B-H; 165-A-D]