Delhi District Court
Sh. Madan Mohan Son Of Late Shri Daya Ram vs M/S Saini CoOperative Thrift And ... on 27 August, 2019
1
IN THE COURT OF Ms. VEENA RANI, PRESIDING OFFICER
LABOUR COURT, ROUSE AVENUE COURTS: NEW DELHI
LIR No.4270/16 and (Old ID No:08/2011)
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE BETWEEN :
Sh. Madan Mohan son of late Shri Daya Ram
R/o E630A, Gali No:12, West Vinod Nagar,
Delhi110091 ....Workman
VERSUS
M/s Saini Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd.
242021, Bazar Kamra Bangash, Darya Ganj,
New Delhi110002 ....Management
Date of receiving of reference :11082011
Date of Final Arguments : 12072019
Date of final Award : 27082019
AWARD
1. The Under Secretary Labour (CD), Government of NCT of
Delhi vide its order No.F.24(13)Lab./CD/58, dated 01082011,
referred an industrial dispute of present worker with the above
mentioned management to the Lab our Court with the following
terms of reference:
LIR No.4270/16 and ( Old ID No:08/2011), Sh. Madan Mohan Vs. M/s Saini Co-operative Thrift
and Credit Society Ltd.
2
"Whether Sh. Madan Mohan S/o Late Sh. Daya Ram tendered
his resignation voluntarily or his services have been
terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management
and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are
necessary in this respect ?"
2. Notice of the reference was issued to the Workman and he
had filed the Statement of Claim. Brief facts as stated in the
statement of claim are that the Workman was working with the
Management as "Assistant" on permanent basis from August
1991 with honesty and diligently. His last drawn wages were
Rs.6892/per month. The workman immediately on joining the
management discovered may fraudulent dealing taking place in
the society. Workman stated that as per office order of the
management dated 13041999 no payments could be made
without the voucher but despite this the then Secretary directed
the workman to hand over Rs.5 lacs without the mandatory
requirement of voucher which was brought to the notice of the
President by way of complaint dated 05062000, upon which the
then Vice President vice its letter dt. 22102001 requested the
then President to intervene and resolve the matter referred in the
complaint but in vain. The workman continued to bring into the
notice of the office bearers about the large financial
irregularities/complaint dated 1772002, interalia to the Registrar
CoOperative Society for appropriate action and also sent various
reminders including reminder dt. 1882002 upon which the
LIR No.4270/16 and ( Old ID No:08/2011), Sh. Madan Mohan Vs. M/s Saini Co-operative Thrift
and Credit Society Ltd.
3
Registrar had appointed Sh.R.K. Gupta as inquiry office vide
letter/order dated 03122002. During the said inquiry one Sh.
Balbir Singh Saini, Committee Member (since expired) had
handed over a document dt. 1741999 to the inquiry officer Sh.
r.K. Gupta, which clearly reflected the state of affairs of the
Society, however, inquiry office came to an erroneous finding and
absolved the office bearers of the Society vide his report dt. 17
062003. Pursuant to the complaint of the workman, the Registrar
Co0perative Society directed for special audit of the
management for 19941995 to 19992000. It is stated that audit
was carried out in the year 19981999 of which the two reports
( signed and unsigned) are in the custody of workman. The
workman stated to have challenged the inquiry report dt. 176
2003 before the Ld. Financial Commissioner vide case
No:31/2004 in which Ld. Financial Commissioner had stayed the
operation of impugned inquiry office report vide order dt. 0403
2004. It is stated that Registrar Cooperative Societies did not
agree with the report of the Special Audit and directed an inquiry
u/s 59(1) of the Act vide letter dt. 25012005 wherein Sh. B. R.
Singh was appointed as inquiry officer, however the workman
were kept out of the said inquiry irrespective of their with to be
included in the inquiry vide letter dt. 01032005 and reminder
dated 1`3052005 as the workman was office bearers and has
been in the helm of affairs with the Society and constantly
endeavored to root out corruption in the Society office.
3. It is submitted by workman that due to constant
LIR No.4270/16 and ( Old ID No:08/2011), Sh. Madan Mohan Vs. M/s Saini Co-operative Thrift
and Credit Society Ltd.
4
victimization of workman, he wrote several representations on
various occasions but all in vain, in fact the society being its true
fact uncovered had suspended the workman vide order dated 01
072003 without any justifiable grounds. It is stated that the
workman was entitled to subsistence allowance, however, no such
allowance was ever paid to him, in fact he was served with the
charge sheet with malafide and illegal intention after ore than a
year of the said suspension. A inquiry officer was appointed and
an inquiry was initiated against the workman in order to
pressurize him to withdraw his complaints and cases against the
society. The said inquiry was based upon a complaint dated 246
2003 about a payment received from a lady Smt. Vidyawati Saini
and the complaint is not even a member of the society and he is
the husband of said Smt. Vidyawati Saini.
4. According to workman, he being aggrieved of the non
release of his subsistence allowance, he approached the Labour
Court vide LCA No:54/2003 which was disposed off vide order
dated 1782005 whereby the workman was paid Rs.1,23,704/ but
nothing had been paid to the workman despite the said directions.
5. It is stated by the workman that on 25072006 certain
Policemen alongwith another employee Mr. Shiv Kumar Saini
came to house of workman and forcibly took him in their custody
and he was taken to Police Post Tis Hazari, where workman
under the threat of his life, was made to sign a resignation letter
which was back dated 10072006 and as soon as workman got
released from the illegal custody on 2572006, he wrote letter
LIR No.4270/16 and ( Old ID No:08/2011), Sh. Madan Mohan Vs. M/s Saini Co-operative Thrift
and Credit Society Ltd.
5
dated 2872006 to the society placing on records the
circumstances which purported the forcible resignation and
informed the management that the said resignation was fraud and
nullity and it has no consequences whatsoever in law and that the
previous communication be treated as withdrawn. Workman also
stated to have written a letter to the Police Commissioner for
illegal act of the police personnel of the Police Post of Tis Hazari.
6. It is submitted that workman being aggrieved of the various
acts of omission and commission by the management approached
the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by way of Writ Petition ©
NO:1610102/2006, which was disposed of, and liberty was given
to the workman to approach appropriate forum for readdressal of
his grievances. The workman thereafter approached the Hon'ble
Labour Court vide DID No:62/09 which was dismissed as
withdrawn with the liberty to proceed appropriately in accordance
with the law by the then Ld. POLC vide order dt. 24082009.
7. It is stated by the workman that thereafter the management
did not pay him anything and there is no reason given till date why
the workman is not reinstated services with full back wages with
continuity of services which was held by him in the society.
8. It is stated that the action of the management is illegal in
terminating the workman from the services and the workman is
fully entitled for his balance all dues including the subsistence
allowance since his suspension and to reinstatement in service
with full back wages and continuity of service since his dismissal
from service despite his best efforts to seek employment and is
LIR No.4270/16 and ( Old ID No:08/2011), Sh. Madan Mohan Vs. M/s Saini Co-operative Thrift
and Credit Society Ltd.
6
surviving on help from his friends and relatives.
9. Workman has stated to have issued a demand notice dt. 01
092010 to the management through register AD/UPC. Thereafter
workman stated to have filed claim in the office of Assistant
Labour Commissioner but management did not appear and did not
file their reply before ALC and despite the efforts of Conciliation
Officer, the workman was not reinstated by the management and
Conciliation Proceedings failed, therefore, the present case has
been referred to this Hon'ble Court.
10. It is alleged that the termination of the Workman by the
Management is illegal and he is unemployed . The Workman has
claimed relief of reinstatement with full back wages.
11. Notice of the statement of claim was issued to the
Management. Management filed its written statement and it is
stated that the claim of the workman is time barred as per the
provisions of section 2A(3) of Industrial Dispute Act. It is stated
that the workman tendered his impugned resignation on 1007
2006 and he has filed the present claim before this Hon'ble Court
on 12092011. Even before the Conciliation Officer he filed his
claim on 01102010. It is submitted that Amended Section 2
A(3) has put a condition of three years from the date of discharge,
dismissal retrenchment or otherwise termination for raising
industrial dispute. It is stated that the present case reference is
not maintainable and same may be dismissed.
12. It is stated that it is a matter of record that the workman was
appointed w.e.f. 01041994. The management has denied the
LIR No.4270/16 and ( Old ID No:08/2011), Sh. Madan Mohan Vs. M/s Saini Co-operative Thrift
and Credit Society Ltd.
7
allegations of the workman regarding alleged irregularities in the
management as stated by the workman in his statement of claim. It
is stated that there has been a regular audit of the society under the
classification/category A and there have been no irregularities in
that regard as alleged by workman. It is stated that even the
Registrar Cooperative Societies has gave a clean chit to society in
respect of all false, frivolous and baseless complaints and
allegations made by the workman against the society and all of
them have been ultimately found to have no footing. It is stated
that the workman was suspended from the service vide letter dt.
01072003 on account of certain charges due to the
administrative reasons. It is stated that the workman submitted his
resignation dt. 10072006 to the society and his resignation was
accepted by the management and the same was recorded in the
minutes of the meeting held on 11072006. The management
denied all other allegations of the workman and prayed for
dismissal of the claim of the workman.
13. In his rejoinder to the written statement of management, the
workman has reiterated the averments made in the claim statement
and has denied all the allegations leveled against him by the
management.
14. From the pleadings of the parties the following issues were
framed for trial on 14122011:
(1) Whether the dispute/claim is within limitation ? OPW
(2) As per term of reference
No other issue was framed in this case. The issue no:1 was
LIR No.4270/16 and ( Old ID No:08/2011), Sh. Madan Mohan Vs. M/s Saini Co-operative Thrift
and Credit Society Ltd.
8
treated as preliminary issues. Arguments were heard on the
preliminary issue by the ld. Predecessor and vide order dated 11
012012 the preliminary issue was decided against the
management and cost of Rs.2000/ was also imposed upon the
management for raising the frivolous preliminary issue.Thereafter
the case was fixed for workmanclaimant's evidence.
15. Workman has filed his evidence by way of affidavit which
has been Ex.WW1/A and documents were exhibited as
Ex.WW1/1 to Ex. WW1/32 and Marked A to marked H. It is
written in the examinationinchief of workman WW1 that
originals of all exhibited documents seen and returned. In his
affidavit Ex. WW1/A the workman reiterated the whole contents
of the statement of claim in his evidenciary affidavit. Workman
has been cross examined by the AR for the management.
16. Workman has also examined one Sh. Valsalavasudevan as
WW2, who filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.WW2/A
bearing his signature at points A and B. He has not relied upon
any documents. He was also cross examined by the AR of the
management.
17. Workman has also examined one Sh. Man Singh Tosaria as
WW3, who filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.WW3/A
bearing his signature at points A and B. He has relied upon letter
dt. 19092005 already Ex.WW1/16. He was also cross examined
by the AR of the management.
18. Workman has also examined one Sh. Gajender Prasad
Nautyal as WW4, who filed his evidence by way of affidavit
LIR No.4270/16 and ( Old ID No:08/2011), Sh. Madan Mohan Vs. M/s Saini Co-operative Thrift
and Credit Society Ltd.
9
Ex.WW4/A bearing his signature at points A and B. He has not
relied upon any documents. He was also cross examined by the
AR of the management.
19. Management has examined Sh. J.K. Bansal as MW1, who
filed his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.MW1/A. The
documents are exhibited i.e. attested copy of the resolution dt.
25022017 is Ex.MW1/1. Original postal receipt is Ex. MW1/2.
Attested copy of minutes of meeting dated 11072006 is Ex.
MW1/3 ( 3 pages colly). MW1 has been cross examined by the
AR of the workman at length.
20. I have heard the final argument of AR's on behalf of both
the parties and perused the record. My findings on the issue No:2
is as under:
21. ISSUE NO:2: "As per term of reference".
"Whether Sh. Madan Mohan S/o Late Sh. Daya Ram tendered
his resignation voluntarily or his services have been
terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management
and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are
necessary in this respect?"
22. The workman has admitted in his crossexamination
(relevant portion regarding resignation) :
"....I prepared one copy of resignation letter i.e. 1
(original) + 1 (copy). One copy of the resignation letter
was retained by me. Vol. It was given to me by Sh. Ajay
Gaur, Enquiry Officer. It is correct that I put my
LIR No.4270/16 and ( Old ID No:08/2011), Sh. Madan Mohan Vs. M/s Saini Co-operative Thrift
and Credit Society Ltd.
10
signatures as well as thumb impression on the resignation
letter which was written by me in my own handwriting.
Vol. I was forced to put my thumb impression. It is
incorrect to suggest that the resignation letter was written
voluntarily by me on 10.07.06 in the office of the
management and not in the police post. It is incorrect to
suggest that I was telephonically told about the
acceptance of the resignation on 11.07.06 by the
management. It is incorrect to suggest that I was not
forced to write the resignation letter. It is correct that the
letter withdrawing my resignation letter was posted by me
on 29.07.06. I do not remember whether I mentioned the
factum of occurrence in police post in my letter
withdrawing my resignation. It is correct that I did not
mention the name of any person from the management in
the letter withdrawing my resignation. It is incorrect to
suggest that I did not file any legal proceedings against
obtaining of my resignation by force by the
management." (crossdeferred)
WW1 Sh. Madan Mohan (recalled for further cross
examination).
It is correct that I was under the treatment of a Doctor
from 157.06 to 29.7.06. I have not filed ant medical
record in this regard. It is correct that the acceptance of
LIR No.4270/16 and ( Old ID No:08/2011), Sh. Madan Mohan Vs. M/s Saini Co-operative Thrift
and Credit Society Ltd.
11
my resignation was posted by the management on 28.7.06.
No letter was sent by me in response to Ex.WW1/26 and
Ex. WW1/26. I had pursue the police complaint lodged by
me. A policeman came to me from Mandawali police
station and made enquiries regarding the complaint.
Thereafter, I did not pursue the complaint as the case was
filed by me against the management before the Hon'ble
High Court. I did not sent any letter to Sh. Ajay Gaur
regarding obtaining my signatures forcibly. I did not
inform the society about filing of the police complaint by
me. It incorrect that my averment that Sh. Shiv Kumar
Saini came to my residence with the police on 25.7.06 is
false. It is incorrect that my averment that a back dated
resignation was obtained from me by the management on
25.7.06 is false. It is correct that original of the
resignation letter is Ex.WW1/M1. It is incorrect that I
resigned voluntarily which was accepted by the
management. I am not working anywhere at present. My
wife is working and have some agriculture land in my
native village from which I get rental income. I also act as
Arbitrator on the penal of Registrar of Societies since the
year 2000. I get an income of about Rs.25,999/ to
30,000/0 per year as such Arbitrator. It is correct that I
did not apply for the job anywhere. It is correct I am also
LIR No.4270/16 and ( Old ID No:08/2011), Sh. Madan Mohan Vs. M/s Saini Co-operative Thrift
and Credit Society Ltd.
12
running Cooperative Society with the name of
Bhagirathi Cooperative Society Thrift and Credit
Society. Again said, I am only a member of the Society.
The Society is running since the year 2002. I am not a
founder member of the Society.
Q. I put to you that you are involved actively in the
activities of the Society?
A. Whenever, the society needs me, it calls me."
23. The entire controversy in the present case boils down to the
issue of alleged "forced resignation" and the assertions of the
workmanherein regarding his "forced resignation" are required to
be proved by the workmanherein. The Hon'ble Gauhati High
Court in "The Management Of Nahortoli Tea ... vs Kamaluddin
Ali & Ors" {WP(C) No.5589 of 2010 decided on on 9 November,
2018} it was observed
"...there is a substantial difference in the legal
implication of a forced resignation and a resignation,
which was not voluntary. Every resignation which is a
forced resignation would be a resignation which is not
voluntary, but every resignation which is not a voluntary
resignation may not necessarily be a forced resignation.
.....
12. The expression "voluntary" is defined in the Black's Law Dictionary to be amongst others, an act done by design or intention or an act which is unconstrained by LIR No.4270/16 and ( Old ID No:08/2011), Sh. Madan Mohan Vs. M/s Saini Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd.
13interference and not impelled by outside influence. On the other hand, the expression "forced" is defined in the same Dictionary to mean to compel by physical means or by legal requirement.
24. The management has examined Sh. J.K. Bansal (Joint Secretary of the Management Society) as witness MW1 who has stated the following relevant to the resignation aspect:
"......I was present in the meeting held on 11.07.2006. I surely have been provided with the agenda. I do not remember whether the agenda which I had received had the issue of consideration of the claimants resignation letter for the meeting to be held on 11.07.2006. The claimant had come to the society to tender his resignation. I cannot say to whom the resignation letter was handed over by the claimant. Claimant tendered his resignation on 10.07.2006. I did not see the claimant tendering his resignation letter to the society on 10.07.2006. It is correct to say that whenever any letter is received in the society its entry is recorded in the diary register. The entry pertaining to the resignation letter tendered by the claimant also might have been entered in the diary register. The person who receives the letter enters the same in the diary register. I do not know who has recorded the entry pertaining to the resignation letter LIR No.4270/16 and ( Old ID No:08/2011), Sh. Madan Mohan Vs. M/s Saini Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd.14
dated 10.07.2006 tendered by the claimant in the diary register. ......Immediately, on 11.07.2006 claimant was informed by telephone that his resignation letter dated 10.07.2006 stands accepted by the society. I cannot say who had called the claimant informing him of acceptance of his resignation letter neither can I say on what number the acceptance as communicated. Volunteered, I remember now it was the Secretary. I heard the Secretary making the call in presence of all office bearer in the meeting. I cannot say to whom the call was made by the Secretary.
Q. What was the name of the Secretary who made the call? (Witness had to check the proceeding register brought by him to answer the question.) A. Mr. Mahendar Kumar Bharal.
The Secretary presented the letter dated 10.07.2006 for the consideration of the society in the meeting on 11.07.2006. I cannot way whether society has received any letter dated 28.07.2006 exhibited as Ex. WW1/23 seeking withdrawal of resignation letter dated 10.07.2006. The decision / reply as communicated in the letter dated 03.08.2006 exhibited WW1/26 issued by the respondent society was taken pursuant to the decision taken by the LIR No.4270/16 and ( Old ID No:08/2011), Sh. Madan Mohan Vs. M/s Saini Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd.15
governing body of the society. Volunteered, it was not taken in the governing body meeting. The full and final dues of the claimant is not paid by the society. Volunteered, in our letter issued to the claimant we had specifically asked the claimant to come and collect his full and final dues and also withdraw all complaints filed by him against the society but he did not turn up. .......The letter dated 27.07.2006 was issued after a gap of 16 days from the date of meeting dated 11.07.2006 because the society through the Secretary had intimated the acceptance of the resignation letter to the claimant through phone. Thereafter, the society was waiting for the claimant to turn up and collect his full and final dues but he did not turn up, therefore, the society issued him the reminder dated 27.07.2006. The decision to issue reminder on 27.07.2006 was taken by the Secretary...........I cannot produce the diary register of the respondent society wherein the entry of the receipt of letter dated 10.07.2006 of the claimant was recorded. ....."
25. Putting the undisputed facts chronologically :
1. On 27.07.2006 the managementsociety intimates the workmanherein that his resignation dated 10.07.2006 has already been accepted on 11.07.2006 (Ex.WW1/25). It was LIR No.4270/16 and ( Old ID No:08/2011), Sh. Madan Mohan Vs. M/s Saini Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd.16
also mentioned therein that the workmanherein was informed telephonically about the acceptance of his resignation;
2. On 28.07.2006 the workmanherein seeks withdrawal of his resignation (Ex.WW1/23);
3. On 03.08.2006 the managementsociety informs the workman herein that his resignation has already been accepted on 11.07.2006 in the meeting of the society (Ex.WW1/26).
26. The abovesaid sequence of events reveal that the letter of the withdrawal of resignation (28.07.2006) was written after the letter of acceptance of resignation (27.07.2006) as per the documents of the workman himself. This is despite the factual position that the resignation dated 10.07.2006 was already accepted on 11.07.2006. Apart from that the perusal of the "forced resignation letter" does not reveal a strained handwriting perse. The workman had admitted in crossexamination "....I prepared one copy of resignation letter i.e. 1 (original) + 1 (copy). One copy of the resignation letter was retained by me. Vol. It was given to me by Sh. Ajay Gaur, Enquiry Officer. It is correct that I put my signatures as well as thumb impression on the resignation letter which was written by me in my own handwriting. Vol. I was forced to put my thumb impression."
27. The crossexamination of the MW1 reveal that the society has taken reasonable steps in accepting the resignation of the workmanherein. By the preponderance of probabilities the LIR No.4270/16 and ( Old ID No:08/2011), Sh. Madan Mohan Vs. M/s Saini Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd.
17management has been able to prove its version. The workman herein has not been able to sustain his version of the resignation being taken by 'force'.
28. In the ordinary dictionary sense, the word 'resignation' was considered to mean the spontaneous relinquishment of one's own right, as conveyed by the maxim. Resignation est juris proprii spontanea refutatio [Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition]. In Corpus Juris secundum Vol. 77, page 311, it is found stated "It has been said that 'resignation' is a term of legal art, having legal connotations which describe certain legal results. It is characteristically, the voluntary surrender of a position by the one resigning, made freely and not under duress and the word is defined generally as meaning the act of resigning or giving up, as a claim, possession or position." In a contractual masterservant relationship, no employee can assert a right to withdraw his resignation, especially after it had been accepted by the competent authority.
29. In view of the aforesaid nature of the facts and circumstances as indicated, coupled with the meaning of the expression of 'voluntary' and 'forced', this Court is of the considered view that in the given facts and circumstances of the case as indicated above, the act of the workman in submitting his resignation cannot be said to be a forced resignation.
The ISSUE is thus decide in favor of the management and against the workman.
30. RELIEF:
LIR No.4270/16 and ( Old ID No:08/2011), Sh. Madan Mohan Vs. M/s Saini Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd.18
The workmanherein had approached the Labour Court by way of LCA No. 54 of 2003 under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act and an order dated 17.08.2005 was passed in which workman herein Sh. Madan Lal had received two cheques bearing no. 011297 dated 16.08.2005 for the sum of Rs.6,193/ and another cheques bearing no. 011277 dated 09.08.2005 for a sum of Rs.1,16,811/ both cheques drawn on Allahbad Bank, International Branch, New Delhi from the management on account of subsistence allowance from the date of suspension i.e. from 01.07.2003 till 30.06.2005. Another workman Prakash Chand Sharma had received a cheque bearing no.011276 dated 09.08.2005 drawn on Allahbad Bank, International Branch, New Delhi for a sum of Rs.1,53,678/ from the management on account of subsistence allowance from the date of suspension i.e. from 29.08.2003 till 30.06.2005.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asger Ibrahim Amin Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India 2015 (10) SCALE 639 held that even if the employee applies for resignation and an employee is allowed to resign, subsequently an employee can seek the relief that the resignation in fact be treated as voluntary retirement. The Supreme Court allowed the conversion of resignation into voluntary retirement because the employee in the case of Asger Ibrahim Amin (supra) had the necessary qualifying years of service for grant of pension and terminal benefits and which benefits/pension would be forfeited in case the employee is LIR No.4270/16 and ( Old ID No:08/2011), Sh. Madan Mohan Vs. M/s Saini Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd.
19taken to have resigned instead of being voluntarily retired. The relevant paras of the judgment in the case of Asger Ibrahim Amin (supra) are paras 13 to 16, and which paras read as under: "13. The Appellant ought not to be deprived of pension benefits merely because he styled his termination of services as "resignation" or because there was no provision to retire voluntarily at that time. The commendable objective of the Pension Rule is to extend benefits to a class of people to tide over the crisis and vicissitudes of old age, and if there are some inconsistencies between the statutory provisions and the avowed objective of the statute so as to discriminate between the beneficiaries within the class, the end of justice obligates us to palliate the differences between the two and reconcile them as far as possible. We would be failing in our duty, if we go by the letter and not by the laudatory spirit of statutory provisions and the fundamental rights guaranteed Under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
14. Reserve Bank of India v. Cecil Dennis Solomon relied upon by the Respondent, although distinguishable on facts, has ventured to distinguish "voluntary retirement" from "resignation" in the following terms:
10. In service jurisprudence, the expressions "superannuation", "voluntary retirement", "compulsory retirement" and "resignation" convey different connotations. Voluntary LIR No.4270/16 and ( Old ID No:08/2011), Sh. Madan Mohan Vs. M/s Saini Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd.20
retirement and resignation involve voluntary acts on the part of the employee to leave service. Though both involve voluntary acts, they operate differently. One of the basic distinctions is that in case of resignation it can be tendered at any time, but in the case of voluntary retirement, it can only be sought for after rendering prescribed period of qualifying service. Other fundamental distinction is that in case of the former, normally retiral benefits are denied but in case of the latter, the same is not denied. In case of the former, permission or notice is not mandated, while in case of the latter, permission of the employer concerned is a requisite condition. Though resignation is a bilateral concept, and becomes effective on acceptance by the competent authority, yet the general rule can be displaced by express provisions to the contrary. In Punjab National Bank v. P.K. Mittal on interpretation of Regulation 20(2) of the Punjab National Bank Regulations, it was held that resignation would automatically take effect from the date specified in the notice as there was no provision for any acceptance or rejection of the resignation by the employer. In Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Misra it was held in the case of a judge of the High Court having regard to Article 217 of the Constitution that he has a unilateral right or privilege to resign his office and his resignation becomes effective from the date which he, of his own volition, chooses. But where there is a provision empowering the LIR No.4270/16 and ( Old ID No:08/2011), Sh. Madan Mohan Vs. M/s Saini Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd.
21employer not to accept the resignation, on certain circumstances e.g. pendency of disciplinary proceedings, the employer can exercise the power.
(Emphasis is ours) The legal position deducible from the above observations further amplifies that the socalled resignation tendered by the Appellant was after satisfactorily serving the period of 20 years ordinarily qualifying or enabling voluntary retirement. Furthermore, while there was no compulsion to do so, a waiver of the three months notice period was granted by the Respondent Corporation. The State being a model employer should construe the provisions of a beneficial legislation in a way that extends the benefit to its employees, instead of curtailing it."
31. In terms of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court/ Industrial Tribunal has been conferred wide power to consider as to whether the punishment imposed upon a delin quentworkman is legal or justified or not but has also been con ferred with power to award a lesser punishment in the event it is held that the punishment imposed is not proportionate to the grav ity of misconduct charged against the delinquentworkman.
32. In V. Ramana v. A.P. SRTC, (2005) III LLJ 723 SC, the Supreme Court observed:
LIR No.4270/16 and ( Old ID No:08/2011), Sh. Madan Mohan Vs. M/s Saini Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd.22
"The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the Court should not interfere with the administrator's decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the Court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in Wednesbury case (1948) 1 KB 223 the Court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the Court should not substitute its decision for that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decisionmaking process and not the decision."
33. Keeping in view the various factors of the events and facts & circumstances of the case in my opinion compulsory retire ment would serve the purpose of the management. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this matter is to be treated to the limited ex tent that the resignation of the workmanherein be treated "com pulsory retirement". Thus the workmanherein would be entitled to all the benefits of a "compulsory retirement" without any condi tion.
34. In view of the above directions, the present case is dis posed off accordingly.
LIR No.4270/16 and ( Old ID No:08/2011), Sh. Madan Mohan Vs. M/s Saini Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd.
2335. Requisite number of copies of the Award be sent to the competent authority for necessary compliance. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court.
Dated:27082019
Digitally
signed by (VEENA RANI)
VEENA
VEENA RANI Presiding Officer Labour Court
RANI Date:
2019.09.02 Rouse Avenue Courts,New Delhi
14:11:34
+0530 Judge Code : DL0271
LIR No.4270/16 and ( Old ID No:08/2011), Sh. Madan Mohan Vs. M/s Saini Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd.
24IN THE COURT OF Ms. VEENA RANI, PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT, ROUSE AVENUE COURTS: NEW DELHI LIR No.4270/16 and ( Old ID No:08/2011), Sh. Madan Mohan Vs. M/s Saini Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd.
27082019 Present : Workman along with Sh. Santosh Singh ARW.
None for management.
An award is passed separately. Requisite number of copies of the Award be sent to the competent authority for necessary compliance. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court.
Dated:27082019 (VEENA RANI) Presiding Officer Labour Court Rouse Avenue Courts,New Delhi Judge Code : DL0271 LIR No.4270/16 and ( Old ID No:08/2011), Sh. Madan Mohan Vs. M/s Saini Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd.