Madras High Court
The Management Of T.I.Diamond ... vs G.Ravichandran on 21 October, 2021
W.A. No.1444 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.10.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.1444 of 2019
and C.M.P.No.9906 of 2019
The Management of T.I.Diamond Chains,
Ambattur, Chennai - 53.
... Appellant
versus
1.G.Ravichandran
2.The Presiding Officer,
I Additional Labour Court,
Chennai. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to set
aside the order dated 25.09.2018 in W.P.No.13518 of 2014.
For Appellant :Mr.Anand Gopalan
for T.S.Gopalan and Company
For Respondents :Mr.S.Veeraraghavan for R1
Court-R2
1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.1444 of 2019
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.RAJA, J.)
This writ appeal has been directed against the impugned order dated
25.09.2018 passed in W.P.No.13518 of 2014 by a learned Single Judge of this
Court in and by which while reversing the award passed by the learned I
Additional Family Court, Chennai in I.D.No.819/2001 dated 28.02.2014,
directed the appellant to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- to
G.Ravichandran/first respondent herein.
2. Assailing the findings and conclusions reached by the learned Single
Judge, Mr.Anand Gopalan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued
that one Mr.G.Ravichandran entered into the service of the appellant on
23.04.1980 as an operator. After taking leave, he went to Coimbatore and
worked in L.G.Balakrishnan Brothers Limited, Coimbatore and the said fact was
also informed to the Union. After coming to know that the said G.Ravichandran
has been going to work in the appellant's competitor company without prior
leave or permission, the said G.Ravichandran, afraid of initiation of disciplinary
action for the said misconduct, on 27.07.2001, personally called the Manager
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.1444 of 2019
and handed over a letter of resignation and thereafter, he did not turn up for duty.
After waiting for four days, on 31.07.2001, the appellant accepted the
resignation and communicated the same to the said G.Ravichandran. Since the
said G.Ravichandran has given his letter of resignation dated 27.07.2001
voluntarily and did not report for duty, the appellant management did not initiate
any disciplinary action against the said G.Ravichandran. All of a sudden, on
07.08.2001, the appellant has received the lawyer's notice stating that the said
G.Ravichandran raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Commissioner
of Labour, Kuralagam, Chennai. Subsequently, a failure report was submitted
under Section 12(4) of ID Act 1947, narrating a different story that the letter of
resignation dated 27.07.2001 has been obtained from him under coercion, threat
and the same is invalid and inoperative.
3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed bringing out the two sides of
the appellant that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of industrial and
automotive chains in one of its factories located at Ambatur, Chennai. The
appellant is a pioneer in the manufacture of industrial and automotive chains and
their immediate competitor is L.G.Balakrishnan Brothers Limited, Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.1444 of 2019
While so, the said G.Ravichandran, who was working in the appellant company,
took leave and went to Coimbatore and worked in L.G.Balakrishnan Brothers
Limited, Coimbatore. The Manager also informed the above said fact to the
union and the management informed that they are going to initiate disciplinary
action against the first respondent for the said misconduct. In order to avoid and
escape from the clutches of departmental proceedings, a letter of resignation
dated 27.07.2001 was given voluntarily by the first respondent and in support of
the said letter dated 27.07.2001, he has also acted by not coming back to duty.
4. During the oral evidence of the first respondent, Ex.W7, legal
notice dated 07.08.2001 was also placed before the Labour Court. The
appellant has produced Mr.A.Ravichandran, Works Manager, who was
examined as M.W.1. After examining the said M.W.1, the first respondent
although has filed a detailed proof affidavit before the Labour Court, taken a
clear stand that at the time of obtaining the resignation letter dated 27.07.2001,
one Mr.Ragothaman, who was the Vice President of T.I.Diamond General
Employees Union and one Mr.Rajkumar, who was also employee of the
company were present. For the reasons best known to him, neither the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.1444 of 2019
Mr.Ragothaman nor Rajkumar was examined. No reason was stated for the
non- examination of the above said two important witnesses. Yet another reason
for not examining the Vice President viz., Ragothaman and Mr.Rajkumar is that
they have clearly proved the allegation of the first respondent that the letter of
resignation was obtained by MW.1 by force was false. The learned Labour
Court has rightly dismissed the Industrial Dispute. Aggrieved by the dismissal of
the Industrial dispute raised by the first respondent, the writ petition has been
filed before this Court by the first respondent.
5. Mr.Anand Gopalan, learned counsel for the appellant argued that
when the learned Labour Court has been clothed with inherent power under
Section 11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, questioning the quantum of
punishment given by the management does not arise. The learned Single Judge
without even appreciating the case of the management that the first respondent
having filed a detailed proof affidavit dated 19.03.2012 that was sought to be
withdrawn for the simple reason that the first respondent having taken a stand in
the proof affidavit that at the time of taking the forced resignation letter dated
27.07.2001 one Mr.Ragothaman and Mr.Rajkumar were also present and they
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.1444 of 2019
could not be produced to support the case of the first respondent that the
resignation obtained by M.W.1 was by force. Reversing the finding and
conclusion reached by the labour Court, the learned Single Judge gave an
erroneous finding that the management alone was responsible for getting a forced
resignation letter dated 27.07.2001 and for which the appellant management was
directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- which is wholly unsustainable one. In
support of his submission, he is also soliciting our notice to paragraph 13 of the
order stated that the first respondent had specifically pleaded in the proof
affidavit that one Mr.Ragothaman, Vice President of T.I.Diamond and
Mr.Rajkumar, who was also employee of the company were present. When the
first respondent has specifically mentioned the names of Ragothaman and
Rajkumar, who were present at the time of forcibly taking resignation letter
dated 27.07.2001 by the appellant company, it has miserably failed to examine
anyone of them in support of his case. When there is a factual finding by the
Labour Court on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the
learned single Judge ought not to have interfered with the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.1444 of 2019
6. Coming to Regulation 29(A) of the certified standing orders for
terminating the employment of permanent workman other than by dismissal,
notice in writing shall be given either by the employer or by the employee one
month prior in case of monthly rated workman and 14 days in case of other
workman, taking support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, learned
counsel submitted that if an employee comes voluntarily with the request to
accept his resignation, notice under the said regulation, which has been intended
for the benefit of the employee, could be waived. Therefore, the learned Single
Judge taken note that the appellant after receipt of the resignation letter dated
27.07.2001 failed to give one month notice or in lieu of payment of the salary
therein is wholly justified for the reasons laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
7. Concluding his argument, learned Counsel for the appellant has
also submitted that when the first respondent after submitting his letter of
resignation forcibly obtained by the appellant, nothing prevents him to give a
letter withdrawing the same either on the next day or within a reasonable time. In
the present case, no letter withdrawing the resignation was given by the first
respondent raising the Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court. Therefore,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.1444 of 2019
the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge is necessarily required to be
interfered with.
8. In reply, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent
submitted that the case placed before this Court by the management that the first
respondent has voluntarily submitted his letter of resignation dated 27.07.2001 is
wholly unthinkable and unbelievable. He would further submit that the further
claim made by the appellant that the first respondent without taking prior leave
from the appellant company visited the immediate competitor namely
L.G.Balakrishnan Brothers Limited, Coimbatore and while working in the said
L.G.Balakrishnan Brothers Limited, Coimbatore, he has divulged the
confidential information for which he was informed to face disciplinary
proceedings. Apprehending initiation of departmental proceedings, the first
respondent had voluntarily submitted his letter of resignation dated 27.07.2001,
which cannot be accepted. Immediately after the letter of resignation dated
27.07.2001 obtained by the management forcibly, the first respondent sent a
lawyer's notice on 07.08.2001. In the said letter, the first respondent has clearly
made out the case that the first respondent had never submitted his letter of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.1444 of 2019
resignation voluntarily. Even, if it is presumed that the first respondent, being
afraid of facing the departmental proceedings, has submitted the aforementioned
resignation letter as per Rule 29(A) of the Certified Standing Order, the appellant
ought to have given one month notice or in lieu thereof one month salary. But in
the present case, neither one month notice nor salary for one month has been
given. The learned Single Judge, based on which, finding fault with the Labour
Court reversed the impugned award and allowed the writ petition. Therefore, the
findings given by the Labour Court that the management has not come forward
to comply with Regulation 29(A) of the Certified Standing Order cannot be
questioned.
9. We are unable to find any justification on the submissions made by
the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent. The reason being that firstly, when
the first respondent claimed that after entering into the service under the
appellant on 23.04.1980 as an operator, he was carrying on his work efficiently,
faithfully and continuously, but, all of a sudden, the works manager called him
on 27.07.2001 to appear before him in E.R.M's room and forcibly obtained the
resignation letter dated 27.07.2001, nothing prevented the first respondent to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.1444 of 2019
send a letter withdrawing the so called forced resignation letter. Secondly, in the
claim petition filed under Section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, he
has not even pleaded what was averred in the proof affidavits dated 19.03.2012
and 10.12.2008. When the first respondent has filed two proof affidavits dated
19.03.2012 and 10.12.2008 and in the second petition affidavit dated
19.03.2012, the first respondent has categorically admitted in paragraph 2
therein that when he was called to the personal office of the appellant company
by the works Manager, one Mr.Ragothaman who was Vice President of
T.I.Diamond General Employees Union and one Mr.Rajkumar who was also
employee of the company were present. Having taken a specific stand that
Mr.Ragothaman and Mr.Rajkumar were present at the time of submitting his
resignation letter dated 27.07.2001, it is not known as to why the respondent has
requested the Labour Court that Mr.Ragothaman and Mr.Rajkumar who were
witnesses to the forced letter of resignation could not be produced before the
Labour Court. In our considered opinion, he ought not to have mentioned the
names of Mr.Ragothaman and Mr.Rajkumar saying that they were present at the
time of obtaining the forced resignation letter from him.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.1444 of 2019
10. As highlighted above, when the first respondent claimed that the
letter of resignation has been forcibly obtained after the aforementioned drama
has taken place on 27.07.2001 nothing prevented him to withdraw the same by
sending the registered letter within a reasonable time. As a matter of fact,
neither in the claim petition before the Labour Court nor in the proof affidavits
dated 19.03.2012 and 10.12.2008, the first respondent has mentioned that there
was a situation gone beyond his control not to send any application seeking
withdrawal of the same. Therefore, these aspects have been completely
overlooked by the learned Single Judge. In view of all the above, we do not find
any justification to affirm the impugned order passed by the learned Single
Judge. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the
reasons given, we have no hesitation to set aside the same. Accordingly, the
impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside.
11. In the result, this Writ Appeal is allowed and there is no order as to
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[T.R.,J] [D.B.C.,J]
21.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.1444 of 2019
ub
T.RAJA,J.
and
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY,J.
ub
W.A.No.1444 of 2019
and C.M.P.No.9906 of 2019
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.1444 of 2019
21.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
