G.C. Day vs The Management Of M/S Eureka ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 2873 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                  W.P.(C) No. 4434/2003

%                  Date of Decision: 28 July, 2009

#G.C. Day.
                                                     ..... PETITIONER
!                  Through: Mr. R.K. Gupta , Advocate.

                                 VERSUS

$ The Management of M/s Eureka Forbes Ltd. & Anr.
                                               .....RESPONDENTS

^ Through: Mr. A.K. Goyal for respondent No. 1..

CORAM: Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL

1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? YES

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?YES

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?YES

S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) This writ petition filed by the workman (the petitioner herein) is

directed against an industrial award dated 13.12.2002 passed by Mr.

Pradeep Chaddah, then Presiding Officer, Labour Court II, Delhi declining

any relief to him. Vide impugned award, the Industrial Adjudicator has

held that the petitioner has left the service of the management

(respondent No. 1 herein) of his own, voluntarily and without there being

any pressure on him.

2 Briefly stated the facts of the case relevant for disposal of this writ

petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Service Technician

with respondent No. 1 w.e.f. 12.05.1986. His last drawn wages was

Rs.4,809/- per month. On 15.04.1994, he tendered his resignation and

requested the management to relieve him from its service w.e.f.

30.06.1994 as he no longer wanted to continue in its service for his

problems on domestic front. The resignation tendered by the petitioner

was accepted by the management on 16.04.1994 by making an

endorsement at the foot of the resignation letter to the effect that the

petitioner would be relieved from the duties w.e.f. 31.07.1994 as he was

asked to complete the works pending with him by that time. The

petitioner was relieved by the management w.e.f. 31.07.1994 vide letter

dated 31.07.1994, a true typed copy of which is Annexure 'E' at page 25

of the paper book. After the petitioner was relieved by the management

w.e.f. 31.07.1994, he sent a telegram to the management on 09.08.1994

which is Annexure 'F' at page 26 of the paper book in which he lodged a

protest against taking his resignation under duress. The petitioner is also

stated to has sent a letter dated 22.08.1994 to the management which is

Annexure 'G' at page 27 of the paper book asking the management to

allow him to withdraw his resignation as it was taken under duress. Since

the management did not concede to the request of the petitioner, he

raised an industrial dispute with regard to his termination which was

referred by the appropriate Government for adjudication to the Labour

Court. The Labour Court vide its impugned award on the basis of

evidence adduced by the parties before it reached to a conclusion that

the petitioner had resigned on 15.04.1994 voluntarily and without there

being any pressure on him. It is aggrieved by this finding of the court

below that the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking setting aside

of the said award.

3 Mr. R.K. Gupta learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Company Ltd., Vs. State of U.P. &

Ors (1994) SCC 27 and on the strength of this judgment, he has argued

that since the resignation of the petitioner was obtained by the

management under pressure and duress, resignation letter given by him

ceased to have any legal effect. I have given my anxious consideration

to this argument advanced by the petitioner's learned counsel but I have

not been able to persuade myself to agree with him. The judgment relied

upon by the petitioner's learned counsel has no application to the facts of

this case. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in J.K. Cotton

Spinning & Weaving Mills Company Ltd.'s case (Supra) can help the

petitioner only in case it is found that the resignation letter pursuant to

which the petitioner was relieved w.e.f. 31.07.1994 had been obtained by

duress or under pressure as alleged by him.

4 The only question that needs to be considered in this petition is

whether the management had obtained the resignation dated 15.04.1994

from the petitioner under pressure or coercion as alleged by him. To

decide this question, it will be relevant to refer to the resignation letter of

the petitioner which is extracted below:-

"To

The Personnel Officer, Eureka Forbes Limited, N.D.

Sir, Due to uncertain unavoidable circumstances prevailing in my domestic front, I would not in a position to continue my service with Eureka Forbes Limited.

This may be as my letter of resignation and may be relieved from 30.06.1994.

Thanking you, Yours faithfully,

(G.C. Dey)"

5 I have carefully perused the impugned award as well as the file of

the Labour Court. The petitioner in his cross-examination has admitted

that the resignation letter dated 15.04.1994 Ex. WW-1/M1 was given by

him. A perusal of the said resignation letter reveals that it is a

handwritten resignation letter and in the course of hearing, learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner on instructions from his

client admits that writing on this letter is that of the petitioner. The

petitioner was appointed as a Service Technician with the management.

He does not appear to be an illiterate person. On being asked, learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner on instructions from his

client has submitted that his client has done his ITI after 10th pass. In

case the resignation letter dated 15.04.1994 was obtained under

pressure or coercion then the petitioner could have lodged a protest in

this regard immediately instead of waiting for his relieving from the

service of the management w.e.f. 31.07.1994.

6 There is another aspect of the matter which needs consideration

and that is that as per the resignation letter dated 15.04.1994 (Ex.WW-

1/M1), the workman had requested the management that he should be

relieved from its service by 30.06.1994 then why he was relieved after a

month w.e.f. 31.07.1994? The answer to this question is found in the

endorsement made by the management at the foot of the resignation

letter stating that the resignation given by the petitioner has been

accepted by the management w.e.f. 31.07.1994 because of certain works

pending with the petitioner. It is why the petitioner was relieved from the

service of the management w.e.f. 31.07.1994 instead of date of

30.06.1994 mentioned in his resignation.

7 The plea taken by the petitioner that his resignation letter dated

15.04.1994 Ex. WW-1/M1 was obtained by the management under duress

or pressure is also falsified by the statement of the management's

witness Mr. Mohit Mathur in para 3 of his affidavit filed before the

Industrial Adjudicator where he has categorically stated that the

workman had submitted his resignation of his own, voluntarily and that

no officer of the management had coerced or forced him to submit his

resignation as alleged by him. There is absolutely no cross-examination

worth the name on this aspect of the matter. It was not even suggested

by the petitioner to this witness in his cross-examination that his

resignation was obtained under pressure or duress. Hence the plea taken

by the petitioner that his resignation was obtained under duress is not at

all acceptable.

8 For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any reason to interfere in

the impugned award in exercise of extraordinary discretionary writ

jurisdiction by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

This writ petition therefore fails and is hereby dismissed.

9     LCR be sent back.



JULY 28, 2009                                   S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'a'