Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 335 (RAJ)

Choksi Heraeus Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan

2015-02-05

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner institution seeks to assail the legality and validity of the award dated 18.8.2000 (Exhibit-8) passed by the Labour Court cum Industrial Tribunal, Udaipur in Labour Case No. 18/1994 whereby the reference made to the Tribunal at the instance of the respondent workman was accepted in part and while refusing reinstatement in service the respondent was held entitled to compensation of Rs. 70,000/-. 2. The respondent workman was employed as a labour in the petitioner institution. He was removed from service on 20.4.1992 on which he submitted an application to the Labour Commissioner cum Conciliation Officer on 22.6.1992 alleging that he had been forced to resign from the petitioner institution. The matter was referred to the Labour Court, Udaipur with a question of reference as to whether the removal of the respondent workman from service by the petition institution on 20.4.1992 was legal or not and the relief to which the workman was entitled? 3. The respondent employee filed a statement of claim in which it was specifically pleaded that his termination was made without following the due process of law and amounted to retrenchment and that the resignation which was taken from him on 20.4.1992 was forcible and was procured under coercion. The petitioner institution submitted a reply to the statement of claim denying the allegations levelled by the workman. However, it is relevant to mention here that in reply to statement of claim, the petitioner institution did not aver that the resignation submitted by the workman was ever accepted. The Tribunal examined the witnesses produced on behalf of the workman and the petitioner institution and arrived at the following findings after examination of the evidence available on record. "1. That there was no reason for the workman to have submitted the resignation and upon appreciation of the evidence available on record concluded that the resignation was procured by pressure and coercion. 2. That the employer failed to give evidence to show that the resignation was accepted or acknowledged." Learned Labour Court held that the termination of the workman from service was illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. 2. That the employer failed to give evidence to show that the resignation was accepted or acknowledged." Learned Labour Court held that the termination of the workman from service was illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was further held that the employee failed to prove that he was out of job during the period of 8 years which lapsed between the submission of statement of claim to the date of award. Accordingly the Tribunal refused to direct reinstatement of the workman in service and instead awarded 50% of accrued wages to the workman between the date of reference to the date of award. The aforesaid amount was quantified at Rs. 70,000/- with interest @ 12% if the payment was not made within a period of two months from the date of award. The petitioner institution has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition assailing the said award dated 18.8.2000. 4. On the previous date of hearing i.e. on 22.1.2015, counsel for the parties requested for time to explore the possibility of a settlement. Today counsel for the parties stated that there is no possibility of settlement being arrived at between the parties. 5. Mr. Arpit Bhoot, counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal erred in holding that the resignation was obtained by the petitioner institution (employer) from the workman under pressure. He relies upon a decision of the Bombay High Court in Laffans India Pvt. Ltd. v. Pancham Singh Rawat reported in 2002 (6) Bombay CR-462 and contends that the case at hand is squarely covered, factually as well on question of law, by the aforesaid judgment. Therefore, he contends that the impugned award deserves to be quashed. He also relies on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India v. The Workmen Employed represented by Firestone Tyre Employees' Union reported in AIR 1981 SC-1626 and contends that the Tribunal whilst examining the validity of the resignation has travelled beyond the terms of reference, and therefore, the impugned award should be quashed. 6. Per contra Mr. Sanjay Mathur appearing for the respondent workman contended that the specific point of reference before the Tribunal was as to whether the termination of the workman from service on 20.4.1992 was legal or not. 6. Per contra Mr. Sanjay Mathur appearing for the respondent workman contended that the specific point of reference before the Tribunal was as to whether the termination of the workman from service on 20.4.1992 was legal or not. He contends that the petitioner institution came with a specific case that the removal of workman from service was effected by the resignation dated 20.4.1992. Thus, examining the validity, effect and the voluntariness of the resignation was essential for answering the reference. He further contends that the judgment rendered by the Bombay High Court in Laffans India Pvt. Ltd.'s case is totally distinguishable and does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case as the facts of the said case reveal that the Tribunal therein held that the resignation letter submitted by the employee was voluntary and that the employer had accepted the same. He further contends that in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it is not permissible to re-appreciate the evidence for recording a finding different from the one arrived at by the Tribunal and thus the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the material available on record. 8. The first ground of challenge which the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised to the impugned award is that the Tribunal travelled beyond the terms of the reference and examined the validity of the resignation letter Exhibit-2 for which it was not competent as the same was beyond the terms of reference. It is relevant to mention here that the workman as well as the employer both came out with a case before the Tribunal that the services of the workman were terminated by effect of the aforesaid resignation letter dated 20.4.1992. The workman's case was that the resignation was procured by threat and coercion whereas the employer termed it voluntary. Thus, while adjudicating the terms of reference, it became essential for the Labour Court to examine the validity of the resignation letter. The exercise undertaken by the Tribunal in examining the validity of the resignation letter was definitely called for and essential to answer the terms of reference. Thus, while adjudicating the terms of reference, it became essential for the Labour Court to examine the validity of the resignation letter. The exercise undertaken by the Tribunal in examining the validity of the resignation letter was definitely called for and essential to answer the terms of reference. Such exercise cannot be held to be beyond the terms of reference as argued by the petitioner's counsel, and therefore, the judgment in the case of M/s. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. (supra) has no application to the case at hand. The next argument canvassed by the petitioner's counsel is that the Tribunal's finding that the resignation was procured under pressure and coercion is illegal and contrary to the evidence and based upon inappropriate appreciation of the evidence on record. This Court has to be cautious of the fact that when a Tribunal's award is being examined under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Court is not required to go behind the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal. That apart a very material fact which is evident from the pleadings of the parties is that the resignation Exhibit-2 on which the petitioner employer chose to rely upon heavily was never accepted or acted upon by it. It is significant to note that the copy of the resignation which has been placed on record of the writ petition does not even bear any endorsement that the same was ever presented or placed before the management. In the case of Laffans India Pvt. Ltd., on which the petitioner's counsel relied upon heavily, the Court held that the resignation was accepted by the Company and this fact was communicated to the employee who did not agitate the issue for a prolonged period thereafter. In the case at hand while filing reply to the statement of the claim that the resignation was ever accepted by it, the finding recorded by the Tribunal in its order upon appreciation of evidence clearly show that the resignation was procured under pressure. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the findings as recorded by the Tribunal on the issue that the termination of service of the workman on the basis of the resignation letter Exhibit-2 dated 20.4.1992 amounted to unfair labour practice, are just and proper and do not call for any interference. 9. The writ petition thus being devoid of any merit is dismissed. 9. The writ petition thus being devoid of any merit is dismissed. No order as to cost.W.P. dismissed - No costs. *******