Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 233 (JHR)

G. Thangaraj v. Union of India

2010-02-11

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2010
Order Heard counsel for the parties and with their consent, this application is disposed of at the stage of Admission. 2. The petitioner in this writ application has clallenged the letter dated 17.9.2003 (Annexure-6) issued by the Respondent No.1, whereby the concerned authorities of the Central Government have refused to refer the dispute raised by the petitioner for adjudication to the Labour Court/Tribunal. 3. The petitioner has prayed not only to quash the aforesaid impugned order, but also to issue directions to the respondents to refer the dispute raised by the petitioner for adjudication before an appropriate forum. 4. Facts of the petitioner's case lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner was an employee under the Respondent-Hindustan Copper Ltd. By a letter dated 25.7.2000 (Annexure-1), issued by the General Manager of HCL, the petitioner was informed that his services were liable to be terminated on the ground that he is a surplus employee and upon such declaration, he was given option to obtain voluntary retirement tailing which the Company would be compelled to terminate his services. The petitioner thereafter submitted his letter dated 29.7.2000 praying for allowing him to retire voluntarily. His request was accepted and thereafter, he was separated from the service under the Respondent-HCL. However, the petitioner continued to maintain a grievance on the ground that the voluntary retirement was, in fact, thrust on him by the Respondent-Management, by means of intimidation and by compelling circumstances and that the petitioner did not, in fact, consent voluntarily for his retirement, in view of the fact that he was the seniormost employee of his department, and was of an advantageous position. The petitioner expressed his aforesaid grievance, by addressing a letter dated 18.12.2001 (Annexure-3), to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Respondent Company, with a request to withdraw the petitioner's voluntary retirement and to reinstate him in service. 5. It appears that upon refusal of the management to accede his request, the petitioner sought to raise an industrial dispute by referring the matter to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) (Annexure-5), for conducting conciliation proceeding. 6. The conciliation proceeding was conducted by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), by calling upon both the parties, but the desired conciliation had failed. 7. The Assistant Labour Commissioner thereafter, forwarded his report to the concerned Ministry of the Central Government recommending for referring the dispute for adjudication to the appropriate forum. 8. 6. The conciliation proceeding was conducted by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), by calling upon both the parties, but the desired conciliation had failed. 7. The Assistant Labour Commissioner thereafter, forwarded his report to the concerned Ministry of the Central Government recommending for referring the dispute for adjudication to the appropriate forum. 8. However, by the impugned order, the concerned authorities of the Central Government refused to refer the dispute by making the following observations:- "Prima facie, this Ministry does not consider this dispute fit for adjudication for the following reasons: It is seen that the workman opted V.R.S. on his own". 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the decision of the Ministry, for not referring the dispute for adjudication is bad, in view of the fact that by the observation noted above the Ministry has itself decided upon the dispute, holding that the workman having opting the V.R.S. of his own, he has no right to agitate any further. Referring in the context to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case to Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh & Anr. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in ( AIR 1989 SC 1565 ], learned counsel explains that while considering the matter whether reference should be made or not, the appropriate Government cannot delve into the merits of the dispute and take upon itself the determination of the dispute which is required to be decided by the appropriate adjudicatory forum. 10. Per contra, the stand taken by the Respondent-HCL and supported by the counsel for the Respondent-Union of India, is that the facts would amply demonstrate that the petitioner has voluntarily opted for V.R.S. and his tender for V.R.S. was accepted accordingly whereafter, the amount of retirement benefits was assessed and he was informed that he was at liberty to receive the payments. 11. Counsel for the• Respondent-Union of India would refer to the petitioner's rejoinder filed to the counter affidavit of the respondents and submit that the petitioner had himself addressed a letter to the management to pay him the admitted dues towards retiral benefits. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner explains that the petitioner had never addressed any such letter and these were only the petitioner's submissions before the court and it cannot be treated as any request made by the petitioner to his employer at any point of time whatsoever. 13. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner explains that the petitioner had never addressed any such letter and these were only the petitioner's submissions before the court and it cannot be treated as any request made by the petitioner to his employer at any point of time whatsoever. 13. Having heard counsel for the parties and having gone through the documents on record, I find that a bona fide dispute was raised by the petitioner, contending that his opting for voluntary retirement, was not of his free will and consent and that it was, in fact, obtained by way of coercion and threat issued to him. This aspect of the petitioner's case is supported by letters addressed to the Chairman of the Respondent-HCL sent in December 2001. His refusal to accept the retiral benefits, as intimated by the petitioner's letter dated 8.12.2001, also affirms his protest and his request to the authorities concerned to reconsider the matter and to reinstate him in service. The dispute raised was whether the acceptance of the V.R.S. was voluntary or whether he was coerced to do the same by the Management. The industrial dispute genuinely raised by the petitioner was also sought to be resolved through conciliation by the Labour Commissioner, who had proceeded to undertake the conciliation proceedings between the parties. Upon receiving the report of the Conciliator, the concerned authorities of the Central Government were required only to assess as to whether the dispute could be referred for adjudication or not. They had no authority to decide the dispute on their own. This view finds support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh & Anr. (supra). Even though, as submitted by the counsel for the Respondent, the concerned authorities of the Central Government are not expected to act as a post office only, but it cannot be disputed that the concerned authorities of the Appropriate Government have no authority to adjudicate upon the dispute, raised by the workman. 14. In the light of the above facts and circumstances of the discussions, I find merit in this writ application. Accordingly this writ application is allowed. The matter is remanded back to the concerned authorities of the Central Government to take an appropriate decision upon the report submitted by the Labour Commissioner, concerning the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner. 14. In the light of the above facts and circumstances of the discussions, I find merit in this writ application. Accordingly this writ application is allowed. The matter is remanded back to the concerned authorities of the Central Government to take an appropriate decision upon the report submitted by the Labour Commissioner, concerning the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner. Such decision must be taken within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Let a copy of this order be given to the counsel for the Respondents.