2024 LLR 9
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Hon'ble Mr. Subodh Abhyankar, J.
M.P. No. 206/2017, Dt/ 4-9-2023
Lloyd Insulation (India) Ltd.
v.
Dilip Kumar Singh
RESIGNATION When not obtained by force Scope of Contention of workman is that he was forced to submit his resignation on 12.4.2014 which was accepted on 14.4.2014 Workman received full and final dues He encashed the cheque received After that workman raised an industrial dispute Labour Court awarded reinstatement with 50% back wages Management challenged the award in writ petition Held, contention of workman is that after about a month, he wrote to Factory Manager that he was forced to sign the resignation and lodged complaint to Police Contention of management is that resignation was accepted and cheque of compensation was encashed by workman Letter of resignation was written by workman After leaving the factory premises, he did not lodge any complaint to any police station nor sent any letter to the Management Workman made complaint to management and Police on 10.5.2014 only, i.e. , after one month Such conduct of workman appears abnormal, and his contention that he was threatened of dire consequences is difficult to be believed He could have filed the complaint immediately after he came out of the factory premises, or within a day or two It cannot be presumed under the circumstances that the resignation was not voluntarily Labour Court have arrived at a perverse finding which cannot be sustained in the eyes of law Hence, writ petition is allowed Impugned award is set aside. Paras 14 to 16
For Petitioner: Mr. G.S. Patwardhan, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kirti Patwardhan, Advocate.
For Respondent: Mr. Prakhar Karpe, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINTS
ORDER
Subodh Abhyankar, J.1. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner employer, against the order dated 11.08.2017, passed in Case No. 50/ID/Ref/2014 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhar whereby an award of reinstatement of the respondent-workman has been passed along with 50% back wages.
2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the respondent workman who was working as a D.G. Operator, gave his resignation on 12.04.2014, which, according to the workman, he was forced to sign, and thus, the application for reference was made to the State Government, and the reference was made by the State Government on 31.07.2014, and subsequently, an application under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was also filed by the respondent workman.
3. Respondent's case is that he was forced to sign the resignation on 12.04.2014, and was threatened by Shri Rakesh Kumar Virmani, the General Manager of the Company of dire consequence if he does not sign the same, and thus, on 06.05.2014, a letter was also written by the respondent to the Factory Manager, and a report was also lodged at Police Station Pithampur in this regard on the same day.
4. The petitioner filed its reply to the aforesaid reference and the Labour Court, after recording the evidence has passed the aforesaid award and being aggrieved, this petition has been preferred.
5. Shri Patwardhan, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Presiding Officer has erred in misreading the letter of resignation submitted by the respondent to hold that there is no acceptance of the said resignation letter, even though it has been specifically endorsed by the Officer of the Company, that individual to be released forthwith, to be paid till date'.
6. Shri Patwardhan has also submitted that the respondent was also given the compensation of Rs. 11,682/- for which he was issued a cheque on 14.04.2014 itself, which has been accepted by him, and has been encashed, and thus, the consent of the workman is clear on the face of the record. It is also submitted that no objection was raised by the workman soon after his alleged letter of resignation was accepted by the officer of the petitioner and thus, the learned Labour Court has erred in passing the impugned award.
7. Senior counsel has also submitted the finding recorded by the Labour Court that Rule 11 of the SSO, The M.P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963 have also not been complied with, which refers to termination, and not the application for resignation and thus, there was no reason for the petitioner to comply with the aforesaid provision.
8. Senior counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that although the issue of resignation was raised in the course of conciliation proceedings, however, the State Government has not referred the said dispute to the Tribunal, and in fact the dispute which has been referred to the Tribunal is in respect of his removal from service, whereas, the Court has given its opinion regarding his resignation from service. Thus, the contention of the petitioner is that when the Labour Court was asked to decide as to whether termination of respondent workman is legal and proper or not and, therefore, the question arises as to whether Labour Court can travel beyond the terms of reference and can give finding about legality and proprietary of resignation. In support of his submissions, Shri Patwardhan has also relied upon the decisions rendered in Mukund Limited v. Mukund Limited Staff & Officers Association, AIR 2004 SC 3905; Tata Robbins Fraser Co. Ltd., and Ors. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court & Ors. (1989) 2 LLN 993 (Patna).
9. Shri Prakhar Karpe, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no interference is called for as the order passed by the Labour Court is just and proper. It is also submitted that the mere fact that only a sum of Rs. 11,682/- has been given to the respondent as the full and final settlement, in itself is sufficient to draw a conclusion that the respondent was forced to sign the letter of resignation, as by no stretch of imagination it can be said that an employee, who is working since 1995 would accept the full and final settlement to the tune of Rs. 11,682/- only. Counsel has also submitted that when the cheque of Rs. 11,682/- was given to him, he was under the impression that it is towards his salary only, as on the memo of full and final settlement, his signatures have not been obtained. Counsel for the respondent has also submitted that delay in lodging the complaint, was also justified in the light of the threats given to the respondent. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the resignation was not accepted by the Competent Authority, which was also signed by as many as 4 other workmen.
10. In rebuttal, senior counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that apart from the salary for the 12 days, the respondent has also been given the production incentives for March and April, 2014, and over and above, he was not entitled to receive any further compensation. It is also submitted that the resignation was accepted by the competent authority which is evident from the fact that the workman was paid in full and final. Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that as of now the petitioner company has already paid to the respondent a sum of Rs. 11.45 lakhs under section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act.
11. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
12. From the record, it is found that the undisputed facts of the case are that the respondent was working as D.G. Operator in the petitioner company since 1995. He has submitted his resignation on 12.04.2014, which was accepted by the Management on 14.04.2014, and an amount of Rs. 11,682/- has been paid to him.
13. So far as the documents which have been proved by the parties are concerned, Ex. D/4 is the letter of resignation dated 12.04.2014 which has been written by the respondent Dilip Kumar Singh in which he has stated that he is working in the SCF and wants to resign due to his family reasons, and has requested the Management to accept his resignation. His application has been endorsed by Colonel Rakesh Virmani, the Assistant General Manager of the Company, and it was also endorsed on this application that the individual to be released forthwith to be paid till date . Thereafter, an amount of Rs. 11,682/- has already been deposited in the respondent's bank account which has also been admitted by Rakesh Virmani that the company has deposited the aforesaid amount in the employee's bank account.
14. It is also found that after the petitioner submitted his resignation on 12.04.2014, he sent a letter to the Factory Manager of the petitioner company only on 10.05.2014, informing that he has been coerced into signing the resignation letter, and he was also threatened of dire consequences if he does not write the resignation. Petitioner has also written a similar letter to the Police Station Pithampur, Dhar on 10.05.2014, informing that he has been forced to give resignation, and was also threatened by some persons sitting in the office of Shri Virmani, that if he does not sign his resignation, he would be done to death. Ex. D/2 is the full and final settlement of the respondent in which he has been given Rs. 11,682/- on 14.04.2014.
15. On perusal of the aforesaid evidence on record, this Court finds that it is undisputed that the letter of resignation was written by the respondent himself on 12.04.2014, however, it is rather surprising that after leaving the factory premises, he did not lodge any complaint to any police station nor sent any letter to the Management of the company, which letter and complaint were made by him to the company and the concerned police station on 10.05.2014 only, i.e., after a period of one month shy of two days. Such conduct of the respondent appears abnormal, and his contention that he was threatened of dire consequences is difficult to believe for the reason that there was no occasion for the Assistant General Manager of the company, who is also an ex-army man of the rank of Colonel, to ask for the resignation of the respondent out of the blue, especially when there are no allegations levelled against the petitioner Company or Shri Virmani, by the respondent, who is a seasoned workman and is well aware of the Company's practice, could have filed the complaint immediately after he came out of the factory premises, or within a day or two, but he sat over the same, and filed the complaint only after around one month, thus, his contentions that he was threatened appear to be an afterthought to take undue advantage of his letter of resignation which he had tendered on account of his personal reasons, and merely because the amount was deposited by the company in the respondent's account, it cannot be presumed to be a reason to hold that the resignation was not voluntarily made by the respondent, especially when the Company has also deposited a sum of Rs. 11.45 lakhs in the account of the respondent from Oct, 2017 till May, 2023. Thus, this court is of the considered opinion that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned judge of the Labour court has misread the evidence on record, and has arrived at a perverse finding which cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
16. So far as the objection raised by Shri Patwardhan, regarding the terms of reference is concerned, this Court finds that Rule 11 of Standing Order Rules, 1963 reads as under:
11. Termination of employment and the notice thereof to be given by employer and employee .
(a) When the employment of a permanent employee is to be terminated, he shall be given one month's notice or shall be paid wages for one month in lieu of notice. No employee other than a permanent employee shall be entitled to any such notice or wages in lieu thereof for termination of his service.
(b) The reason for the termination of service shall be recorded in writing and shall be communicated to the employee unless such communication may in the opinion of the manager directly or indirectly lay the company or the manager or the person signing the communication open to civil or criminal proceedings at the instance of the employee.
(c) Any permanent employee desirous of leaving the employment shall give one month's notice to his departmental officer stating the reason for which he is leaving but if he so requires he may be relieved earlier than the date on which the period of notice expires .
(d) No notice shall be necessary for the discontinuance of the employment of a permanent seasonal employee on the expiry of the season, but he shall have a lien on his
post at the commencement of the next season.(e) subject to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), no temporary employee, whether monthly rated or weekly rated or piece rated, and no probationer or badli or fixed term employment's employee, as a result of non-renewal of contract of employment or on its expiry, shall be entitled to any notice or pay in lieu thereof, if his services are terminated, but the services of a temporary employee shall not be terminated as a punishment unless he has been given an opportunity of explaining the charges of misconduct alleged against him. ( Emphasis supplied )
17. A perusal of the aforesaid rule clearly reveals that it also refers to the resignation of an employee. Thus, the aforesaid ground is not available to the petitioner.
18. Be that as it may, as already observed, the finding recorded by the Labour Court that the respondent's termination of service by the petitioner Company was illegal and unwarranted, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, as it was not even the case of the respondent that he was removed from his service illegally, his case was that he was made to write the resignation by way of coercion by the petitioner company. In view of the same, the impugned order dated 11.08.2017 is hereby set aside.
19. So far as the judgments cited by the counsel for the respondent are concerned, viz ., Jitendra and others v. Mhow Hosiery Pvt. Ltd ., 2005 MPLSR 292; Audyogik Shramik Sangh v. General Secretary, Charma Udyog Shramik Karmachari Union and another , 2005 MPLSR 300; Mhow Hosiety Pvt. Ltd . v. Jitendra, MANU/MP/0134/2005; Atlas Cycle (Haryana) Ltd. v. Kitab Singh , MANU/SC/0070/2013; Factory Manager Minda Sai Limited v. Smt. Laxmibai passed in W.P. No. 5660/2017 (Indore) dated 03.07.2018; Sanjay Jain v. National Aviation Co. of India Ltd ., MANU/SC/1395/2018, they are of no avail to the respondent under the present facts and circumstances of the case.
20. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of .