Bombay High Court
Laffans India Pvt. Ltd. vs Pancham Singh Rawat And Anr. on 30 August, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(6)BOMCR462, [2003(96)FLR310], 2002(4)MHLJ470
Author: R.J. Kochar
Bench: R.J. Kochar
JUDGMENT R.J. Kochar, J.
1. The petitioner employer is aggrieved by the impugned award dated 11th August 1997 passed by the Labour Court in Reference IDA No. 988 of 1995 to adjudicate the industrial dispute raised by the respondent workman for reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages with effect from 5th January 1994.
2. Both the parties appeared before the Labour Court after the order of reference was given by the State Government under Section 10(l)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Both the parties filed their pleadings and adduced their, oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective pleadings. By the impugned award, the Labour Court directed the petitioner employer to pay a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- by way of compensation in lieu of relief of reinstatement.
3. Briefly stated the dispute between the parties was whether the respondent workman had tendered his resignation voluntarily or was forced to resign from employment by the petitioner company. It appears that the respondent workman was appointed first in the year 1978 and thereafter it appears that the employment was discontinued and he was again reappointed on and from 11th December 1982. According to the respondent workman, he had not voluntarily resigned from employment with effect from 17th December 1993. He pleaded that his signatures were taken on some blank papers. It appears that in the branch office where the workman was employed, according to the petitioner, the entire staff was involved in an en mass fraud committed by all of them collectively to the tune of Rs. 21 lakhs. The said fraud was committed by all the staff members including the Manager of the branch. The police investigation on the complaint by the petitioner were initiated against all the staff members. It appears that the name of the respondent workman was not taken in the FIR. He was working as a peon in the branch office. It appears that he tendered his resignation on 17th December 1993. It appears that the perpetrators of the collective fraud, all staff members, had resigned from the employment. It appears that they had refunded a part of the amount and some goods. The petitioner company accepted the resignation of the present respondent along with resignation letters of the others. The respondent was informed by a letter dated 22nd December 1993 that his resignation was accepted. Thereafter, it appears that in April 1995, he for the first time, raised a demand for reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service alleging that his services were terminated orally by the petitioner. The petitioner had contested the dispute and contended that the respondent workman had voluntarily resigned under his hand by a letter dated 17th December 1993 and that he was duly communicated by a letter dated 22nd December 1993 that his resignation was accepted. It was further contended that as late as in April 1995, the respondent raised the industrial dispute falsely alleging that his services were terminated and that his signatures were taken on blank papers and that they were used as resignation and that he had not voluntarily resigned. As stated by me earlier, both the parties had adduced oral and documentary evidence. The Labour Court by the impugned award has gone through the entire evidence and accepted the case of the petitioner that the respondent workman had signed the resignation letter which was accepted by the petitioner. The Labour Court also observed that the conduct of the workman in raising industrial dispute after 15 months was not like a man of ordinary prudence. The Labour Court also observed that even in the demand letter he had not made out any case that the company had obtained his signature on the blank papers and that they were used fraudulently as his resignation letter. The Labour Court appears to have considered the entire evidence on record and further concluded that handwriting of the entire resignation letter was in the same ink and was the same and that there was no difference in the writing. The Labour Court further recorded that the workman had admitted the signature on the resignation letter and therefore, the burden was on him to prove that it was obtained by other employees of the company on blank papers and subsequently the company has used it as his resignation. The Labour Court has also found that the resignation letter was accepted by the petitioner company and the same was communicated to him. The Labour Court has also observed that the workman had at no point of time had complained before any authority that his signature was fraudulently used and that his such signature was obtained on a blank paper or that his resignation was forcibly obtained.
4. Curiously enough the Labour Court has, after accepting the fact that the resignation by the workman was voluntary and not obtained forcibly, entered the controversy which it ought not to have. The Labour Court has held that the petitioner company ought to have held an enquiry in the alleged fraud by the employees and then they ought to have terminated him from the employment. The Labour Court has commented that a resignation letter was a short cut method adopted by the petitioner company. In para 10 of the award, the Labour Court recorded a contradictory finding that the resignation was forcibly obtained by the petitioner company as per the letter dated 17th December 1993 and that it amounted to illegal termination. The ground for such a finding, the Labour Court gives, is that the name of the present workman was not in the F.I.R. and, therefore, he had not submitted his resignation but he was forced to resign as per the letter dated 17th December 1993. It is very difficult to understand the queer logic of the Labour Court. After coming to a conclusion that the resignation letter was signed by the respondent workman and that it was accepted by the petitioner company, specifically in writing and that he had raised the dispute after a period of 15 months, the Labour Court takes a U-turn and says that it was a forced resignation merely because his name was not in the FIR. On the basis of the said logic or illogic the Labour Court has found that the workman was entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,25,000/- applying the formulae as worked out by the Labour Court in para 14 of the award. The Labour Court has significantly not granted reinstatement though at that time the branch was functioning.
5. In my opinion, the award of the Labour Court cannot stand scrutiny even for a minute. No reasonable man could have come to the conclusion to which the Labour Court has come to, though the resignation letter was true and though the signature was admitted by the respondent workman and though he had received letter from the petitioner company that his resignation was accepted, it could be said that it was a forced resignation. It is a fact that from 17th December 1993 or from 22nd December 1993, the respondent workman at no point of time had complained to any authority under the law or to anyone including his union that he was forced to resign from employment or that he was forced to sign some blank papers and that such blank papers were used as his resignation letter. As rightly observed by the Labour Court in its earlier part of the Award that even in the demand letter submitted by the respondent workman after a period of 15 months, he did not whisper that his resignation was a forced resignation. It is absolutely unbelievable that if a workman is forced to resign he would keep quiet for a period of 15 months and would not take any action of any nature to protest against the force used by the employer to obtain such resignation letter. The delay of 15 months in raising demand itself is a crucial factor to discard totally the false theory of the workman that he was forced to resign or that his signature was taken on the blank papers or that such papers are used as resignation letter. In spite of more than sufficient material and evidence on record and though the Labour Court was satisfied about the factual aspect of the resignation I fail to understand how in the subsequent paragraphs of the award, the Labour Court has changed its flow of the award and reasoning for an resignation and come to a conclusion that the resignation was a forced resignation merely because the name of the respondent workman was not in the FIR. The finding of the Labour Court, therefore, is totally baseless and perverse and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Since the respondent workman had voluntarily resigned, there was no question of holding any domestic enquiry to punish the delinquent workman. It was entirely for the employer to accept resignation to simply get rid of the workman to buy peace and to save from the cost of enquiry or to hold an enquiry and punish. No inference of any nature can be drawn from the fact that the resignation was accepted as a short cut. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong or illegal or improper on the part of any employer to let his workman resign and leave even after the charge of a misconduct to avoid litigation and to avoid any stigmatic order which would also be not in the interest of the workman. It is not compulsory for the employer to hold an enquiry and punish his employee if the latter peacefully and voluntarily leaves the employment. Often such short cuts are also beneficial for both. There was absolutely no valid ground and justification for the Labour Court to hold that the resignation was a forced one and therefore, amounted to illegal termination to granting an amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- as compensation in lieu of reinstatement. The Labour Court has rightly commented that the conduct of the workman was not like a man of ordinary prudence. Any man of ordinary prudence, even a peon like the respondent workman would raise an alarm or protest as soon as he had received a letter from respondent company that his resignation was accepted. He would have immediately approached some authority or his union or the Government labour officer to say that he had never resigned but his resignation was taken forcibly or that his signature was taken on blank papers. In spite of its correct appreciation of evidence by the Labour Court, I fail to understand how the Labour Court has in the later portion of its award accepted the theory of forced resignation. There is absolutely no merit in the case of the workman. The findings and conclusions of the Labour Court are, therefore, baseless and perverse. The award, therefore, is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (a) with no orders as to costs.