Union Of India, Ministry Of Labour ... vs Mrs. Rajani Wd/O Indranath ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 2308 Bom

                                                                      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.

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

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

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