Karnataka High Court
Channachari S/O Late Kalachari vs M/S San Engineering & Loco-Motive Co Ltd on 25 November, 2010
Author: Subhash B.Adi
Bench: Subhash B.Adi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER
BEFORE ¢
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE _
REGULAR FIRST i\}O_.83S/2C§Q;§'
BEIWEEN: VA A
Channachari .
Aged about 56__Vears _ '
S / 0 Late Ka_1,ac1f;ari '
No.6232,%13dé'1v;A.:r1.% = j
1st Block, 1111" Sta«g'e.V A
BasaVeshw'araf1ag'ar ..
BaI1_ga10ré'+- 56.0 "V079. " ...APPELLAN'I'
" {B§}5'SriA..:C.M.Naigab11ushana, Adv. ,)
Sari Eriéineering &
Loé0--ri1Qtive C0,, Ltd.,
P.o.Bo;: N0.4802
.. Whitefield Road
" Bangalore -- 560 048
'~ "Represented by its
A ._..Managing Director. ...RESPONDENT
[By M/s S.N.Murthy & Assts., 8:
Sri. Somashekar, Advs.) I'-Q This R.F.A.is filed under Section 96 of CPC the judgment and decree dated 2.3.2oo5,paeeedan OS.No.8959/2001 on the file of the V111 Addl.VCit§"C.ii;il"» Judge, Bangalore city [CCH:15)J.dis_mis_sing" for". damages.
This appeal is comii1g"'-on fortdictatir1§;'judgmer1'twif this day, the Court delivered__the: fol_lowir1g.:f_§_ V'? the judgment and decreepassed'in:0e;SL}'i~l0;S9h59/01 dated 02.03.2005 on the file ofthe Civil Judge, Bangalore.
The Allpavr-eie's would be referred as per their the trial court.
is one for declaration that the termination of tlie3 plaintiff from the service of the defendant-
"C_o'_fi-ipany with effect from 26.09.2000 is arbitrary,
0. iillegal and claimed Rs.3 lakhs by way of compensation.
4. The case of the plaintiff is that was appointed as a fitter on 13.01.1975 on daily':'RTZ$i.'%?:'¥eSVV of Rs.1i.60/--. As he was working sincerely pgiiitll he was promoted. On individually called several prepared by the Corpo'iiat'e.t_> Office "lthemii including the plaintiff precarious financial condition of Company is unable to con~t:iri~1_ie _:the.4Vs*eiv_iVce "of the plaintiff and insisted '-- l = 'l should tender voluntary resignation. . piaintiff did not agree, on the or.1_.._.26.09.2000, when he went to the ' .~facto1*y,:"~l;1c not permitted and was asked to meet .thelAManag_efnent at the hotel. At the hotel, about 9 persons from the management were present in the room "if the plaintiff was called and was forced to tender his resignation and was issued with cheque for a sum of Rs.i,35,000/--~ and Rs.12,089/-- towards ex--gratia payment. The said resignation was obtained by 3 r%% coercion/force. By letter dated 24.10.2000, the Management also issued another for Rs.60,473/~» towards gratuity amount. another 61/2 years service, he default or misconduct and it coercive steps taken by 60 years service. Since the was salary of Rs. 10,000/-- at the of his service, as such, he is entitled lRs.5 lakhs with interest at In this regard, he issued a legal noticed dated0:54li'.2001 and the Management gave c_l_ated""23.._05.2001 denying the allegation and V ---the claim of the plaintiff. It is in these 'circumstances, the plaintiff was constrained to file a suit;
5. The Defer1dant-Company on service of 'summons, appeared and filed written statement. it denied that the Management had compelled the plaintiff t csts'.
u-- , to tender resignation. However, the Management admitted that the Company was suffering from financial problems. This circumstance the notice of the employees and onDnegotiations,"pl'aintiff" , has agreed to accept the pac-,kage.~ Acc0rding1y,l'l'1O:n 26.09.2000, he voluntari1y:_ter1dere'd re$ig;1a:i.ci1 am: * thereafter, he collected A,t.hleF._chequhe -a.nd_.:§ ex--gratia payment and also c0i1'ected_vl:hve amount. It is only after sevenv..rno:nth:s hisVi'~resignation, he issued a legallknotice demand for which the manageinent "a.:_r.eply and alleged that the plaintiff isrlot _;e11titled"for...the relief as sought for. "SJ --._trial court on the basis of the above llpleadingsjhas framed five issues, which is as under:-- [i) Whether the plaintiff proves that his termination from the service of the defendant company with effect from 26.09.2000 is unlawful, arbitrary, illegal and void?
or"
6
(ii) Whether the plaintiff proves he is entitled to claim Rs.3 compensation from the defendantjV'efoi* the remaining periodeof. '4 V'
(iii) Whether the pivaintiff ispl,."_cntitled--4.l"' for declaratory asl'prayed:'v_for*?"'
(iv) To Jjjwhat parties' are entitled A l {M j;.1y.i?iwh?a.: c»:d§er"of[d}:cre.é? ll examined as PW--l and produced""E;:s..Pi-. On behalf of the defendant. 1;_v:vasp.eXarnii'i'ed and produced Exs.D1 to D6. Trial 'ltgoiirt: appreciation of the evidence on record has held theipiaintiff has not proved the termination is pillegalgand arbitrary and he has also not proved his claim for compensation of Rs.3 lakhs and is not entitled V. _..i'or declaratory relief and accordingly, dismissed the suit. It is against this judgment and decree, the plaintiff is in this appeal. 9';'::fi,....
8. Learned Counsel for the appellant--p1aintiff submitted that it is not in dispute that the p1a.in'tiff,:was appointed as a fitter on meager salary of the year 1975. Due to his ha;_~d"'werl;".,g1n_d" he i was promoted and he Twas"
Rs.10,77i/-. On 25.09.200v£l:,"'*the manageinentffinsisted that the plaintiff should tenderelusinresignation. When he is refused to do so, to enter the and he was compelled to go" _ Residency road, where 9 majnagemerit Artlefnhfersff were present and they compelled .hiin tender his resignation. As such, resignation is pnotAdda-,4Valid.A'.i'resignation and is a void document, as it does ..i*iot.A«:atnount to voluntary act. As there were 9 it npersoris". the plaintiff had no other option, except to ".ter1'der his resignation and it is in these circumstances, "his resignation was taken. The plaintiff was "not aware of his rights, when he was advised to file a suit, he 1 1 issued a legal notice and the delay should notgcorne in the way of the legitimate claim. It is not Vvithéatp the plaintiff had still 61/2 years service.an,d'ftheife._1sl»hp reason for plaintiff to tender his resigénatieoii 'and submitted that sirnilarlyf placed._'emp1o3}Vees:4__:Vgoi;; lltlige, benefit of more than whatlzthe got. He therefore submitted..._z':g"that the court Without appreciating the evidences on_rsco1fd;"lias dismissed the suit, which Ltallsnfor..ii1terfereng.3,' _On the":.other::'i3and, learned Counsel for the defer1dant:~5Compan3}' siihmitted that. defendant does not thewplaintiff was working in the company. .1-I.ic_;wxe=.-r.'=,§'i--*,.,gCV company's financial position was not so'und,° Company was under the financial crises and nu.nder"" the precarious circumstances, the Company C "negotiated with the employees, bringing to their notice V' " "the Company's position, and under these circumstances the employees tendered voluntary resignation and same was accepted. The management had offered package. which was accepted by the employees and accordingly. plaintiff had also accepted the package""'a:'id:
tendered his resignation, and after mon_ey.. and also after collecting the gratuityaainountQ"-afte:r.__}a.ps&e of 7 months, he issued*:a'~..§egai'~.not.ice;'I voiuntary resignation, plaintiff-.c_oL1_}d not liavetkept quiet for 7 months. He a1soi"s.ubmi.t'teud'thattaking advantage of package _"'c1T.?<Z1 .a':terI'; same. as an afterthot1'gl1t,"'v"t:heVtpiaintiff "has filed a suit, which is frivolousiand the'ttriahcourt on proper appreciation of evid"en.c_e.has rightly dismissed the suit. 1 Eight of the submissions, the point that art-.ses__"for 'consideration is as to "VVhether the judgment and decree of the trial court calls for interference"? 1 1. The facts which are not in dispute are that the plaintiff was an employee in the defendant company and he had worked from 1975 till 26.09.2000.
according to the plaintiff, on informed by the management that he .. resignation, for which he had7,_Vno.t~agreed-,andVen the next day he was prevented and resignation was obtained. is ac«eepted?, plaintiff would not have kept"'qt1iet'--.fo;f to issue a legal notice allegingithat not voluntary. It is also not tliat plaintiff makes an application of gratuity. It is also not in dispute received the gratuity amount of ch'eq1_.1e_.son 24.10.2000 for an amount of
--_i\/lanagement alleges that if he has not resignation he would not have aceeptedlthe compensation of Rs.1,35,000/-- and ex~ A "if payment Rs. l2,089/- which are paid by cheque. it is not in dispute that the plaintiff got both the cheques encashed and after nearly one week, he makes an application for payment of gratuity. Gratuity was étri F not paid on the very same day and it was received on 24.10.2000. If the plaintiff had intended to he could not have made an application for;payf(n.e1n.;_.Vuof gratuity and he could not have receiVed_.the_ic-heque, .. 9 for 7 months, he did nothing. it he calls that the resignation'«tendered by > however there is no evide'nce--.._to that the management obtair1.exti_' in by force. Management has admitted c.oi:npany's financial position "'-and it was facing difficulty and as suchifiitd had._made:_".the request to the employees to acc'ep:t_gf'thge paciaage; After having accepted the same, ' ssuitgwas my opinion, voiuntary resignation is a if it is coercive action, he could have taiienia "proper action immediately. Assuming that i.thei?e was some dispute between the management and the plaintiff and was any confusion, after having accepted the compensation and also ex--gratia amount, the fact that after giving resignation. making an application for gratuity and accepting the gratuity by cheque, this clearly show that the p1aintiff..'teiidered voluntary resignation, there was no accepted all the payments. the payment, as an after thought, the opinion, the trial courtddoiri-.._pr0per 'apdprevcivatiiig they evidence on record has rightiy'~.disrfii,ssed the suit.
12. Learned had relied on decisiondqof reported in AIR 1969 Mysore 230, stat'ing' act is done under the coercion, does 'not'vaiidate such an act.
113. The fadctsdin the said case is entirely different. Vprove that it is wrongful act, it is not proved the resignation was under force or pressure or xcompu.-ision. In turn the conduct of the piaintiff and the he '~~V_Vcirei1mstances do prove that he tendered his resignation " opened eyes and after having accepted everything, the suit was filed.
14. Considering the same, there is no error Committed by the triai court in dismissing the N0 grounds to interfere.
15. Accordingly, I pass the fo110\vin_g;u: ' in ;V'VAppe'aI5i_s dis1i;is'se_'cE. No order as to costs. sd/-
JUDGE