Guru Harkrishan Public School vs Jaspal Singh And Ors.
2006 Latest Caselaw 1737 Del

JUDGMENT

Manju Goel, J.

Page 3326

1. Admit.

2. The petitioner is seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the Award dated 7.11.2002 passed by the Labour Court No. -IX, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in I.D. No. 522/99 between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 whereby the Labour Court has found respondent No. 1 entitled to reinstatement and 70% back wages. The petitioner is the employer of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 had been working as a Store Keeper Page 3327 with the petitioner. The respondent No. 1 signed a letter of resignation on 31.5.1998 and received a sum of Rs. 12,500/- by means of a cheque. Respondent No. 1 raised an industrial dispute alleging that the document of resignation had been obtained from him under threat and when his oral request for his reinstatement were not heeded to by the petitioner, he sent a notice dated 24.8.1998 asking for his reinstatement as well as back wages. The industrial dispute was referred to the Labour Court No. IX with the following terms:

Whether Jaspal Singh has resigned from the job and has accepted his full and final due, or his services has been terminated by the management illegally and/or unjustifiably, if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect.

3. Before the Labour Court respondent No. 1., inter alia, alleged that for quite sometime before the letter of resignation was signed by him, the petitioner management had been harassing him and eventually the petitioner management succeeded in getting the letter of resignation from him. He, however, claims to have subsequently submitted the letter asking for his reinstatement and, therefore, claims that he is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages. The petitioner management, on the other hand, contended that respondent No. 1 left the job as he had some offer of an alternative lucrative job, that respondent No. 1 received the payment of Rs. 12,459/- in full and final settlement of his claim by means of a cheque and that the story of having submitted the resignation letter under threat or coercion or duress is false. In a rejoinder filed before the Labour Court, respondent No. 1 submitted that he did not accept the cheque but the same was deposited by the petitioner in his salary account with the Punjab and Sind Bank, Extension Counter at India Gate Branch, New Delhi.

4. In the impugned Award, the Labour Court framed six issues, namely:

(i) Whether the management is an industry as defined under Section 2(j) of the I.D.Act?

(ii) Whether the claim is not maintainable against the Principal of Guru Hari Kishan Public School?

(iii) Whether the claim is bad for non-joinder of Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Managing Committee?

(iv) Whether Jaspal Singh, the workman, resigned the job in full and final settlement of his claim?

(v) Whether the services of the workman has been terminated illegally by the management Committee?

(vi) Relief

5. The Labour Court thereafter proceeded to take evidence of the parties. The management absented from the proceedings from the stage of cross-examination of the respondent (workman). The Labour Court examined the evidence recorded and the arguments of the authorised representative of the respondent as well as the written arguments filed by him. Certain rulings were also cited by the respondent which the Labour Court took into consideration. The Labour Court in para-11 of the Award observed that in the affidavit taken by way of statement-in-chief of the respondent, the Page 3328 respondent deposed that since the date of his illegal termination he was unemployed and had no source of income. The respondent (workman) also proved by the affidavit his original appointment letter dated 1.8.1991 issued to him Ex.WW1/1, the letter of confirmation dated 15.12.1992 Ex.WW1/2, the copy of his promotion letter to the post of Assistant Store Keeper dated 15.11.1994 and also his pass book in respect of saving bank A/c No. 3181 showing a credit of an amount of Rs. 12,459/- on 10.6.1998. The respondent also proved the copy of the demand notice and its service which have also been noted by the Labour Court. The Labour Court then observed in para-13 of the Award that the testimony of the workman has remained consistent and unrebutted. In para-14 of the Award the Labour Court observed that the management along with the written statement had placed on record a copy of the information given to the workman regarding acceptance of his resignation dated 27.5.1998. The Labour Court noted an endorsement on the letter of 27.5.1998 saying that the respondent was being relieved from his post on 27.5.1998, that the date had subsequently been changed to 31.5.1998. It was further observed that in the letter there was no mention of the issuance of the cheque to the workman. The information of the management placed on the record showed that the workman had been directed to hand over the charge of the Store to Mrs. Raminder Kaur, Accounts Assistant-cum-Typist w.e.f. 27.5.1998. A document dated 28.5.1998 showed that the charge had actually been handed over on 28.5.1998. The management placed on the record the resignation letter which, inter alia, showed that the workman was made to sign the resignation letter in presence of the Education Committee Meeting headed by the Chairman. The resignation was actually accepted on 27.5.1998 with immediate effect. The Labour Court observed that the documents of the management showed discrepancy in dates and that the defense taken in the written statement was highly improbable. The Labour Court then proceeded to say that the workman (respondent) had been successful in showing the genuineness of his case and that the action of the management in terminating his service was illegal and unjustified and the same was in violation of the principles of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. In para-16 the Labour Court considered issues No. 2 & 3 which related to the preliminary objections. The Labour Court decided these two issues against the management (petitioner). The Labour Court took up issue No. 1 in para-17 of the Award. It found that the workman (respondent) was not working as a Teacher and, therefore, was a workman while the management (petitioner) was an industry. Para-18 of the Award deals with relief. Although there was nothing to show that the workman was gainfully employed elsewhere, the Labour Court granted reinstatement with 70% back wages.

6. This Award is said to be perverse for the following reasons.

First, it is alleged that over emphasis has been given in the alteration or cutting in the date in the letter of relieving. Secondly, the Labour Court did not at all take into consideration the fact that the respondent (workman) had issued the notice about his resignation being taken under coercion three months after the date of resignation showing that the Page 3329 story of the respondent was entirely an afterthought. Thirdly, the Labour Court failed to take note of the fact that the workman not only submitted his resignation but also accepted the cheque and deposited the same in his account. Fourthly, there was no specific finding in the Award that the workman had resigned under duress or coercion.

7. So far as the first ground is concerned, it will be necessary to have a look at the letter of relieving the workman. This is a typed letter which reads as under:

  2-6/Skt-2/91-92/A/c                                            27/5/98
 

Mr. Jaspal Singh, 

(Store Keeper)
 

You are hereby informed that your resignation has been accepted with the concurrence of the members of Governing Body (Education Committee). Accordingly you are relieved from your post with immediate effect i.e. 31.5.98. Salary for three month's is being paid in lieu of notice period apart from current month's salary.

       Sd/-                                                  Sd/-
(S. Shamsher Singh Sandhu)                             (Mrs. H. Singh)
    Chairman                                              Principal

 

8. The date of 31.5.1998 is written by deleting the figure '27' which was originally typed. Much has been made out of this alteration by the Labour Court. However, the workman (respondent) himself did not weave a story around this alteration in the date. It merely shows that initially when the letter was typed by the typist, the date by which he was to be relieved was recorded as 27.5.1998 but before it was delivered, the date of relieving was altered to 31.5.1998. There is some rationale behind this deletion since 31.5.1998 would have been the last working day of the month.

9. It takes us to point No. 4 about the allegation of coercion in obtaining the letter of resignation. The Labour Court has not come to any finding that the resignation was submitted under duress. All that the Labour Court says is that because there was an alteration in the date, as mentioned above, the termination of service of the workman was illegal. This was not the case of the workman. The workman's case was that he had been made to resign under duress and, therefore, his resignation and consequent termination of his service was bad. This point has not at all been addressed by the Labour Court.

10. It has also to be seen that the respondent (workman) in his statement of claim did not at all allege that he had not received the cheque on submission of his resignation letter and that the management itself has deposited the cheque in his salary account. The plea that the respondent had actually not received the cheque and the management deposited the cheuqe in his salary account is entirely an afterthought. In fact, in the statement of account the workman says that he was illegally kicked out of the school without any prior notice or information and was paid only Rs. 12,500/- approximately through cheque. Therefore, the Labour Court to that extent has totally failed to take note of the important plea of the workman in the statement of claim and has arrived at a finding which is absolutely contrary to record.

Page 3330

11. The Labour Court certainly has failed to take note of the fact that the workman did not complain about the duress under which he was allegedly made to write his resignation till three months after the incident. The notice of the workman was given three months after the incident suggesting that the workman's story of duress also was entirely an afterthought.

12. I find that the Labour Court has failed to take note of very important and prominent features of the case and has arrived at the findings which are totally perverse. Although the management remained ex-parte, the Labour Court was under obligation to objectively examine the pleadings and the evidence produced before it and to answer the reference. The Labour Court has not returned any finding, as mentioned above, as to whether the resignation was taken by duress. However, the facts mentioned above clearly establish that the workman (respondent) had submitted his resignation and had accepted the payment of Rs. 12,500/- which was subsequently deposited in his own account.

13. In view of the above, I find that the Labour Court's judgment is entirely perverse and, therefore, is liable to be quashed.

14. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed with the above observations and the impugned Award is quashed. CM Nos. 13207/05 & 8628/04 stand disposed of.