Delhi High Court
Smt. Reena vs M/S Nanda Brothers P. Ltd on 11 August, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 11th August, 2011.
+ W.P.(C) 5206/2008 & CM No.6651/2011 (u/O-5 R-20)
% SMT. REENA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. K.S. Rana, Adv.
Versus
M/S NANDA BROTHERS P. LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may Not necessary
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Not necessary
3. Whether the judgment should be reported Not necessary
in the Digest?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The petition impugns the award dated 17th March, 2008 of the
Industrial Adjudicator on the following reference:-
"Whether the services of Smt. Reena have been terminated
illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to
what relief is she entitled and what directions are necessary in
this respect?"
and holding that the petitioner workman had herself resigned from
employment of the respondent employer and is thus not entitled to any relief.
2. Notice to show cause of the petition was issued on 22 nd July, 2008.
Since then the matter is being adjourned either for the reason of the
petitioner having not taken any steps for service of the respondent employer
or for the reason of the process sent to the respondent employer at the
address given by the petitioner workman being returned with the
endorsement that no such firm exists at the said address. The counsel for the
petitioner workman has now filed CM No.6651/2011 for service of the
respondent employer by substituted means. However since the matter is still
at show cause stage, it has been deemed expedient to hear the counsel for the
petitioner workman on whether the award calls for any interference in
exercise of power of judicial review.
3. The respondent employer contested the claim of the petitioner before
the Industrial Adjudicator pleading closure with effect form 1 st January,
2002 and also pleading that the petitioner herself, after remaining on
maternity leave, had expressed inability to continue in employment and had
tendered her resignation on 14th August, 1993.
4. The petitioner of course in her rejoinder before the Industrial
Adjudicator denied any resignation.
5. The Industrial Adjudicator has found that the respondent employer
had proved the resignation letter of the petitioner as Ext. WW1/M1 and on
which the petitioner admitted her signature. It was further found that the
petitioner did not explain the circumstances in which her admitted signatures
existed on the said resignation letter. The Industrial Adjudicator, in the face
of the said admission and circumstantial evidence of the petitioner workman
prior thereto being on maternity leave believed the version of the respondent
employer of the petitioner having herself resigned from employment.
6. The counsel for the petitioner has today upon being asked as to how
the signatures existed on the resignation letter, contended that the said
signatures were obtained at the time of joining employment only. He is
however unable to show that any such plea was taken before the Industrial
Adjudicator. If that had been the case of the petitioner, the petitioner ought
to have in the rejoinder taken the said stand and/or during her cross-
examination/evidence explained the signature. The explanation rendered
before this Court orally cannot make this Court review the award against
which no appeal has been provided.
7. Even otherwise, the finding as aforesaid is a finding of fact and is
found to be a plausible view on the basis of the material/evidence before the
Industrial Adjudicator and it cannot be said that the award is perverse or that
the said factual finding is based on no evidence whatsoever.
8. There is thus no merit in the petition; the same is dismissed. No order
as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
AUGUST 11, 2011
bs
