1 wp3539-05
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
Writ Petition No.3539 of 2005
1. Union of India, Ministry of Labour
New Delhi, through its Secretary.
2. Central Board of Workers' Education
Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh,
2426 Ramnaresh Bhavan, New Delhi.
3. Central Board of Workers' Education
Education Centre, Deep Bungalow,
Chursingh Road, Pune, through
its Regional Director.
4. Regional Director,
Workers' Education Centre,
9/32 Bungalow, Bhilai,
Chhatisgarh.
5. Regional Director, Central Board
of Workers' Education,
North Ambajhiri Road, Nagpur. ... ... Petitioners.
-Versus -
Mrs. Rajani wd/o Indranath Shivankar,
aged about 45 years, R/o Plot No. 51,
Subhash Nagar, Nagpur 440 022. ... ... Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Sundaram, counsel for petitioners.
Mr. P.C. Marpakwar for respondent sole.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATE : 5th May, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT ( Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) We have perused judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal.
::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 01:01:32 :::2 wp3539-05 Central Administrative Tribunal has relied upon adjudication by its Jabalpur Bench which equated resignation with voluntary retirement. Advocate Sundaram has invited our attention to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court which finds mention in paragraph 6 of order of Jabalpur Bench i.e. in case of (J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Ltd., Kanpur Vs. State of U.P. and others) AIR 1990 SC 1808 to urge that there controversy has been examined only vis a vis the defence of retrenchment as defined in Section 2(oo) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He also invited our attention to judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported at 2004 (9) SCC 461(Reserve Bank of India and Another Vs. Cecil Dennis Solomon and another) particularly paragraph 10 to urge that there Hon'ble Apex Court has pointed out difference in retirement on reaching the age of superannuation, voluntary retirement, retirement on medical ground and resignation.
2. We have heard Advocate Marpakwar also in this respect. He submitted that the respondent was not aware of the niceties and because of medical problem faced by her, submitted her resignation. According to him, in this situation, a compassionate view needs to be taken and the resignation needs to be read as request for proceeding on retirement on medical grounds.
3. During hearing, we find that on record there is nothing to show ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 01:01:32 ::: 3 wp3539-05 that respondent was facing any apprehension of disciplinary action and therefore wanted to resign hurriedly.
4. Employer also has accepted her resignation on medical ground and informed her categorically that she would not be entitled to pension and gratuity. Advocate Marpakwar submit that as respondent has put in 14 years one month and 8 days service, after four and half years of service her entitlement to gratuity cannot be denied.
5. When employer denied pension and gratuity, respondent approached Central Administrative Tribunal. The alternate prayer made by Marpakwar could have been made by respondent before that forum. In that case, the present petitioner would have got opportunity to raise necessary defence.
6. However, considering the facts at hand, as also the view taken by Jabalpur Bench at Madhya Pradesh, we find it appropriate to place back the matter before Central Administrative Tribunal at Nagpur. The alternate prayer being made by applicant before it shall be looked into by Central Administrative Tribunal in accordance with law. Needless to mention that we keep all rival contentions including correctness of view taken by Jabalpur Bench of CAT open for reconsideration by Central Administrative Tribunal.
7. To facilitate the process, we quash and set aside the impugned ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 01:01:32 ::: 4 wp3539-05 order dated 19.1.2005 and restore O.A. No. 2123/2003 to file.
8. Parties are directed to appear before Central Administrative Tribunal in next sitting at Nagpur on First Monday.
9. Parties are also given opportunity to amend their pleadings. The Central Administrative Tribunal shall attempt to consider the controversy afresh at the earliest.
10. Writ petition is thus partly allowed and disposed of. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Hirekhan
::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 01:01:32 :::