Madras High Court
K.V. Ramachandran, V. Ramasethu And ... vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 8 December, 2006
Author: K. Chandru
Bench: K. Chandru
ORDER K. Chandru, J.
1. The petitioner in W.P. No. 8890 of 2000 is a Shorthand Writer, the petitioner in W.P. No. 8891 of 2000 is a Studio Manager and the petitioner in W.P. No. 8892 of 2000 is a Manager incharge in Printing and Production Department under the writ petitioner Company. All the three of them raised industrial disputes under Section 2(A)(2) of the I.D. Act, which were taken on the file by the first respondent Labour Court as I.D. Nos. 916 to 918 of 1981 respectively.
2. The grievance of the petitioners was that they had no inclination to go on voluntary retirement and one Branch Manager by name Jude Fernandez called them to his room and compelled them to sign in a letter for going on voluntary retirement. This was resisted by the second respondent Management on the ground that the company's financial position was not alright during the year 1980-81 and because of that, they introduced Voluntary Retirement Scheme [for short 'VRS'] and the petitioners in these petitions were well aware of the company's financial position and, therefore, applied voluntarily to go on retirement. Subsequent to the application, they were relieved from their posts and they also gave letters for early settlement of the benefit under the VRS. Such a scheme has been introduced by the second respondent Management not only in Chennai, but in the other centres like Bangalore, Delhi and Hyderabad also. In respect of the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 8891 and 8892 of 2000, an additional objection was raised by the second respondent that they were not workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act and hence, the industrial disputes raised by them were not maintainable.
3. In all these petitions, the writ petitioners as well as one M.Ramasamy and R.Srinivasan were examined on the side of the workmen and M/s M.Vincent, S.V. Velan and S. Seshadri were examined as witnesses M.W.1 to M.W.3 respectively, on the side of the second respondent Management and documents were filed and marked by both sides.
4. It is significant to note that the second witness M.W.2 S.V. Velan was the Union President. The Labour Court, after examining the evidence, rejected the preliminary objection raised in respect of Ramasamy and P.S. Ramamurthy, the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 8891 and 8892 of 2000 respectively, regarding the question as to whether they were workmen under the I.D. Act or not and held that they were workmen and the disputes raised by them were maintainable. However, the Labour Court passed three Awards on the same date, viz., 30.8.1999 and dismissed the disputes after holding that there was no proof with reference to the coercion pleaded by the three petitioners/workmen. On the contrary, the Labour Court, as a matter of fact, held that the workmen voluntarily gave letters to go on voluntary retirement and subsequently, settled their amounts and, therefore, all the disputes were rejected. It is against the three Awards passed by the Labour Court, the present writ petitions have been filed.
5. I have heard the arguments of Mr. B. Divakaran, learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioners in all the three petitions and Mr. S. Ravindran for M/s T.S. Gopalan & CO., learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent Management in all the writ petitions and have perused the records.
6. The case of the petitioners in all these writ petitions was that the letter for voluntary retirement was obtained from them under coercion. It is for them to prove it by letting in satisfactory evidence before the Labour Court. When questioned as to what is the precise nature of coercion pleaded before the Labour Court. Mr. Divakaran, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that there was an admission by M.W.2 P.S.Velan that the voluntary retirement was pursuant to a letter received from the Head Office stating that certain persons will have to be sent out on voluntary retirement and, therefore, according to the learned Counsel, this was a pre-planned exercise and pursuant to the said circular, letters were obtained from the petitioners in a coercive manner. The very same argument was rejected by the Labour Court and the amounts towards VRS were received by them without any protest. In fact, contemporaneous documents have been filed to show that they themselves asked the Management to settle their amounts. In case of voluntary retirement, the Head Office has to plan as to how many workmen will have to be sent out and necessarily, the branches will have to be notified in this regard and, therefore, this cannot be called a pre-plan. Secondly, M.W.2 P.S. Velan, who himself is a Union President, has deposed that he had discussion with the Management with reference to the VRS and there is no coercion involved in this.
7. In the light of the above factual position, the finding rendered by the Labour Court is perfectly valid and legally justified and there is no ground to interfere with the Awards passed by the Labour Court.
8. In regard to the contention regarding coercion, Labour Court cannot come to any decision based on mere suspicion and such a finding must be based on acceptable evidence. In this context, it is relevant to refer to a recent decision of the Supreme Court (Gyanendra Sahay v. Tata Iron and Steel C. Ltd.) wherein it has been held in paragraph 14 as follows:
14. We have also perused the memo of appeal and other representation made by the appellant. The appellant has made a vague allegation that he was forced to take retirement. Neither has he made it specific nor had given the name of any officer who compelled him to write the letter dated 1-4-1995 or exercised undue and excessive pressure to sign the letter of premature/voluntary retirement. Though the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the appellant was compelled to submit the letter of resignation, the same is not supported by any acceptable evidence. It is settled law that suspicion and doubt cannot take the place of evidence. No finding of fact can be given on mere doubt and suspicion or on the basis of baseless allegations. The appellant having written a letter of voluntary retirement and after having accepted the retiral benefits without any protest cannot now turn round and say that he was compelled to submit his premature/voluntary retirement." (Emphasis added)
9. In the light of the above, all the three petitions must fail and accordingly, shall stand dismissed and the Awards passed by the Labour Court are upheld. However, there will be no order as to costs.