Delhi District Court
Sh. Rajiv Sharma vs M/S Air Link India Limited on 5 May, 2008
ID NO. 481/2005
IN THE COURT OF MS. MAMTA TAYAL: PRESIDING OFFICER: LABOUR COURT-
I : ROOM NO.50: KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI.
ID NO. 481/2005
DATE OF INSTITUTION: 16.11.2005
RESERVED FOR ORDERS: 23.04.2008
DATE OF DECISION: 05.05.2008
BETWEEN
Sh. Rajiv Sharma
S/o Sh. M.L. Sharma
Through :
R.S Rai & M.A. Siddiqui, Advocate
Chamber No. T-12, Tehsil Lane,
Tis Hazari Court, Delhi-54.
........ Workman
AND
M/s Air Link India Limited,
A-219, Road NO. 5,
Mahipal Pur Extension,
New Delhi -37.
........ Management
AWARD
Secretary (Labour), Government of National Capital
Territory of Delhi has referred this dispute arising between the parties
1
ID NO. 481/2005
named above for adjudication to this Labour Court vide
notification No. F.24 (861)/2005Lab./10283-87 dated 13.10.2005 with
the following terms of the reference:-
"Whether Sh. Rajiv Sharma S/o Sh. M.L. Sharma
have abandoned his service after tendering his
resignation and collecting full and final
settlement or his services have been terminated
illegally and/or unjustifiably by the
management, and if so, to what sum of money
as monetary relief alongwith consequential
benefits in terms of existing laws/Govt.
Notifications and to what other relief is he
entitled and what directions are necessary in this
respect?"
1 On receiving a notice from the court, the workman
appeared and filed statement of claim contending that he has
been in employment of the management since 01.05.95 as
Assistant and his last drawn wages were Rs. 8620/- p.m. He was duly
issued an appointment letter and was also being paid HRA @ 2975/-
p.m. He was sincerely and diligently serving the management and
there was no complaint whatsoever against him to the
management. In the year 2001 Mr. Sudesh Bhagat joined the
2
ID NO. 481/2005
management as Vice President and immediately after resuming
charge, he started victimising the workman. On 31.05.03 he
obtained signatures of the workman on various papers including his
resignation letter with the assurance that he shall be again taken on
rolls after six months or so. He was advised not to make any
complaint in this regard as it would lead to loss of his service. The
workman believing the promise of the management remained silent
and did not protest against the malpractice of the management.
In last week of April 2004, Mr. Bhagat told him that he shall be
assigned work by the management w.e.f. 01.05.04. On that date,
he was told to visit the manage after 10.05.04. On 11.05.04 when
he again went for duty, the management flatly refused to take him
on job. Hence, the workman sent a legal demand notice dt.
12.05.04 to the management but to no avail. The conciliation
proceedings initiated at his instance also resulted in failure on
account of non-cooperation of the management. The workman
prayed for reinstatement with all consequential benefits and full
back wages stating that he is unemployed since his illegal
termination.
2 The management in its reply, admitted the relationship
3
ID NO. 481/2005
raising the defence that the workman has himself voluntarily
resigned from job on 31.05.03 and has been paid all his dues to the
tune of Rs. 51143/- as per the details given in the WS. He has also
been paid the PF and gratuity amount as per rules and therefore
there is no question of his illegal termination. The receipt of
demand notice was not specifically denied but all other
contentions of the workman were controverted at length by the
management.
3 No rejoinder was filed on behalf of workman.
4 On the pleadings of the parties, following issues came to
be framed on 24.05.2006 :-
1) Whether the workman had resigned of his own on
31.05.2003 and had received a sum of Rs. 51,143/- (Rs.
Fifty One Thousand One Hundred and Forty Three only)
in full and final settlement of his dues as claimed in the
preliminary objection no. 1 to the Written Statement. If
so, its effect?
2) As per terms of reference.
5 Parties were called upon to adduce their respective
4
ID NO. 481/2005
evidence to substantiate their contentions. The workman himself
appeared as WW-1 while Mr. Ashok Mehta, Sr. Manager Legal,
respondent was tendered as MW-1. The evidence was concluded.
The management filed its written arguments but neither written arguments nor oral submissions were made on behalf of workman. 6 I have perused the entire records, carefully considered the matter and given my prolonged consideration to the controversy in hand.
My findings on the above issues are as follows :-
ISSUE NO.1 :-
7 Workman has raised this dispute contending that he has been terminated illegally and unjustifiably by the management whereas the defence put up by the management is that the claimant has himself voluntarily resigned from the service and received his full and final dues. The fact that resignation was signed by the workman is not disputed by the workman himself. His plea is that he was forced to sign the same by Sh. Sudesh Bhagat, vice president of the management on 31.05.03. It is established principle of law that onus lies on a person who wants a document to be read 5 ID NO. 481/2005 otherwise than it purports to be. Hence it was for the workman to establish that the resignation was not voluntary. In his statement of claim, the workman has averred that prior to year 2001 there was no problem but in 2001 when Mr. Sudesh Bhagat joined the management, he started victimising and pressurising the workman on one pretext or another. On 31.05.03 he obtained signatures of the claimant on various papers including resignation letter with the assurance that within seven to twelve months, he will be taken back in service. This claim of the workman is apparently contradictory. If he was being pressurised and victimised by Mr. Sudesh Bhagat since 2000, there was no reason or justification for the claimant to believe the assurance of said Mr. Sudesh Bhagat in May,2003. Besides this, the admission of workman in cross- examination that till cessation of his service, he was given all the statutory benefits, paid revised salary and was given increments alongwith all other consequential benefits as per the terms of appointment also falsifies his claim that after 2001 he was being victimised in any manner. The management apparently was acting fairly qua him and it is obvious that there was no victimisation or exploitation of the worker by the management at any time. Further, admittedly the workman never made any complaint to the higher officials or to police or labour 6 ID NO. 481/2005 department against the alleged forcible resignation letter obtained by Mr. Sudesh Bhagat. Not to mention that on resignation, the workman received a sum of Rs.51,143/- by way of cheque from the management towards leave encashment, notice pay and salary for May,2003. This shows that he was paid all the terminal benefits on tendering his resignation Ex.WW1/M1 which is admittedly written by the workman in his own handwriting and is also signed by him. Likewise workman has also admitted his signatures on Ex.WW1/M2, the payment voucher. He has accepted the receipt of terminal benefits. Not only this, he further admitted that after resignation he had applied for closure of his PF account vide letter Ex.WW1/M3 where upon he was paid a sum of Rs.1,11,609/- through a cheque dated 01.08.03. The said amount was accepted and used by the workman without any protest or complaint of forcible resignation. In fact, in his application for closure of PF account, duly signed by the workman, the reason for closure of account given by workman himself is resignation. Prior to receipt of the PF amount workman also applied for release of gratuity amount, vide application Ex.WW1/M6 dated 12.06.03 giving the reason as resignation. He was paid a sum of Rs.39,785/- towards gratuity through cheque, which was again credited in his account and utilised by the worker. 7 ID NO. 481/2005 At the cost of repetition, it is observed that the workman has admitted his signatures on both these documents and has also admitted the receipt of the terminal benefits as well as gratuity and PF from the management. The case does not rest here and workman also admits that after his resignation, he has been receiving pension. All these admitted facts alongwith the proved documents and coupled with the fact that the dispute was raised after about one year of resignation, are sufficient to conclude that the resignation tendered by the workman was voluntary. The workman has besides his own statement failed to tender any independent evidence to substantiate his claim. He though claimed that he was visiting the management for one year and was assured of re-induction but no co-worker or any other employee of the management has been summoned to corroborate his this statement. The issue is therefore, decided in favour of management and against the workman.
ISSUE NO.2 :-
8 In view of my findings on Issue no. 1 that the workman resigned voluntarily from the service and received his entire dues in 8 ID NO. 481/2005 full and final from the management, it cannot be held that he was terminated illegally or unjustifiably by the management. In circumstances, I am satisfied that the workman is not entitled to any relief or direction from the court in the present reference. 9 The reference is answered accordingly. Copies of the award be sent to the appropriate government for publication as per law after necessary compliance by Ahlmad. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (MAMTA TAYAL)
on 5 May, 2008
th
PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT-I
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
(SIX COPIES ATTACHED)
9