Jharkhand High Court
M/S Ceasefire Industries Ltd vs Anuj Kumar Poddar on 27 November, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2025:JHHC:35399
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (L) No. 3951 of 2019
M/s Ceasefire Industries Ltd., a company registered under the Companies
Act, 1956, having its office at 602, "Doli Chamber", 6th floor, behind Strand
Cinema, Colaba, P.O. and P.S. Colaba, District Mumbai (Maharashtra),
through its Managing Director namely Shri Ashutosh Mangal, aged about 52
years, son of Late S.V. Mangal, resident of C-195, sector-44, Noida, P.O. and
P.S. Noida, District Noida, Uttar Pradesh, PIN 201301. .... Petitioner
Versus
1. Anuj Kumar Poddar, son of Late Rameshwar Chandra Poddar,
resident of Ananadpuram, Gondatown, Kanke Road P.O. Gonda, P.O. Ranchi
University, District Ranchi, PIN 834008.
2. Head- Human Resources, M/s Ceasefire Industries Ltd., Plot No 4,
Sector 135, Noida-Greater Noida Expressway, P.O. and P.s. Noida -
201301(Uttar Pradesh).
3. Assistant Regional Manager, M/s Ceasefire Industries Ltd., House No
218/A-9, Jatra Tand, Misir Gonda, Kanke Road, P.S. Gonda, P.O. Ranchi
University, Ranchi-834008, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).
...... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
For Petitioner : Mrs. Shilpi Sandil Gadodia, Advocate
Mr. Anish Lall, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Gautam Rakesh, Adv
.......
CAV on: 30.10.2025 Pronounced on:27/11/2025
1. The present writ application has been filed by Petitioner praying therein for the following reliefs:
i. For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing/setting aside the Order dated 28th June, 2019 (Annexure-10) passed by Dr. Sanjay Kumar Chandhariyani, Presiding Officer, Labour Court Ranchi in Bihar Shops & Establishment Case No.09/2016, wherein termination of services of Respondent No. 1vide order dated 11.02.2016 has been set aside and the Management has been directed to reinstate the respondent No.1 in service with half backwages.
ii. For issuance of any other writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Petitioner Company has challenged the impugned order dated 28.06.2019 by which learned Labour Court directed the management of Petitioner Company to reinstate Respondent no.1who was an employee of the 1 2025:JHHC:35399 Petitioner Company back in service with half back wages, while setting aside order of termination dated 11.02.2016 in spite of the fact that Respondent no. 1 accepted the order of termination from service and further requested for and accepted payment of full and final settlement amount in his favour.
3. Petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of fire extinguishers. In the State of Jharkhand, Petitioner Company is primarily engaged in the business of sale and marketing of fire extinguishers.
4. Respondent no.1 was an erstwhile employee of Petitioner-company and is the sole contesting Respondent, whereas Respondent nos. 2 and 3 are Performa Respondents who were impleaded as Opposite Parties before the Labour Court Ranchi in Bihar Shops & Establishment Case No. 09/2016 and are holding their respective posts under the Petitioner-Company.
5. Respondent No.1 was offered employment by the petitioner company vide letter of offer dated 4th August, 2005 on the post of Sales Executive. Thereafter, Respondent no 1 was issued appointment letter dated 17th September, 2005 with the place of posting at Jamshedpur Sales Office of Petitioner-Company on the post of Sales Executive.
6. Respondent no.1 was discharging his duties in the Petitioner Company on the post of Sales Executive at Jamshedpur. As per the nature of his job profile he was also required to contact clients of the Petitioner Company situated at Ranchi. He was promoted to the post of Senior Territory Manager with effect from 1st July, 2011, but his place of posting continued to be at Jamshedpur.
7. Owing to Respondent no.1's deteriorating performance in the Company reflected in his failure to achieve the sales target, and, also taking into account several complaints received regarding his misbehaviour with his colleagues and in office decorum, the Respondent no 1 was issued warnings to amend his work performance and behaviour. However, Respondent no. 1 failed to do so.
8. As a consequence of Respondent no 1's failure to make amends in his performance at work as well his office behaviour, the Petitioner-company 2 2025:JHHC:35399 issued a letter dated 11th February, 2016 discharging Respondent from the services of Petitioner-company.
9. Upon receiving the said letter of termination dated 11th February, 2016, Respondent no.1 sent an e-mail to Petitioner-company on 29.02.2016 stating that he will hand over all assets of the company which he was using for the Petitioner-Company's work and requested for release of all legal dues payable to him. Subsequent communications vide e-mails dated 1st March, 2016 and 10th March, 2016 were also made by Respondent no.1 requesting for full and final settlement of the accounts pursuant to his release from services. He meanwhile undertook the activity of handing over the assets of Petitioner- company to the authorized persons.
10. After the completion of the handing over formality, Respondent no 1's full and final settlement was calculated to be Rs.79, 151 in terms of clause 12 of the Appointment Letter and he was paid one month's basic salary and other admissible amounts payable upon his release from the services of the Company, being termination simplicitor, i.e. Leave Encashment, Gratuity, Ex- gratia Bonus, etc.
11. On 7.4.2016, the Respondent no 1 received an amount of Rs.62,848/- without any protest and a declaration was given by him that he has received the said amount towards full and final settlement of his dues and he has no claims, demand and dispute whatsoever from the Petitioner-Company, including his claim for reinstatement in the company. An amount of Rs.16,303/- was retained by the Petitioner Company which was recoverable from the Respondent no 1 due to non-receipt of statutory Form 'C' under the Central sales Tax Act, 1956which was required to be collected by Respondent no 1.
12. After Respondent no 1 handed over copies of the statutory Form 'C' the said withheld amount of Rs.16, 303/- was also released to Respondent No 1 on 28.04.2016. The Respondent no 1 further gave a declaration that he has no claim, demand or dispute against the Petitioner Company, including the claim for reinstatement. However, while signing the said document, Respondent no 1, wrote "RUP" below his signature.
32025:JHHC:35399
13. On 10.05.2016, Respondent no 1 filed a petition before the Labour Court at Ranchi under Section 26(2) of the Bihar Shops & Establishment Act, 1953 read with Rule 21 of the Jharkhand Shops & Establishments Rules, 2001 primarily alleging, inter alia, that Respondent no1 has been victimized and his services have been terminated on the charge of alleged misconduct without holding any disciplinary proceeding against him and a claim for reinstatement in service with full back wages was made.
14. The Petitioner Company filed its Written Statement denying the allegations of the Respondent no 1, specifically stating that Respondent no 1 himself accepted his release from the services of the company and thereafter communicated for release of full and final settlement amount to be paid to him. In fact, the full and final settlement amount of Rs.79, 151 has duly been released to Respondent no 1.
15. After framing of the issues, evidences were laid on behalf of both parties and several documents were filed. The learned Labour Court vide order dated 11.07.2019 after taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties in Case no 09 of 2019, was pleased to set aside the termination order dated 11.02.2016, by which the services of the Respondent No 1 was terminated; and was further pleased to pass order of reinstatement of Respondent No 1 in service with half back wages. This order dated 11.07.2019 is under challenge in the present writ petition.
16. Mrs Shilpi Sandil Gadodia, Advocate appearing for the Petitioner Company contended that the learned Labour Court has wrongly set aside the order of termination dated 11.02.2016 of Respondent no 1on the ground that the said order of termination was not a termination simplicitor, but due to misconduct of Respondent no 1, and since no departmental enquiry was conducted, it was held by learned Labour Court that termination is not maintainable in the eye of law.
Learned labour Court, while relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nar Singh Lal versus Union of India and ors, reported in 2000 (3) SCC 588, has held that merely because Respondent no 1 has received the retrenchment compensation, it cannot be said that Respondent no 1 has surrendered all its constitutional rights and cannot 4 2025:JHHC:35399 challenge the order of termination, which is wrong since the respondent no 1 accepted the letter of termination without any protest.
17. It was further submitted that from a bare reading of section 26 of the B.S.E. Act, it would be evident that Section 26(1) of the said Act provides for discharge/termination of services of an employee "for a reasonable cause"
after giving such employee either one month's notice or one month's wages in lieu of such notice.
18. Section 26(1) of Bihar Shops & Establishments Act, 1953 provides. -
"26. Notice of the dismissal or discharge.- (1) No employer shall dismiss or discharge or otherwise terminate the employment of any employee who has been in his employment continuously for a period of not less than six months, except for a reasonable cause and after giving such employee at least one month's notice or one month's wages in lieu of such notice:......"
Clause 12 of the terms of employment dated 17.09.2005 provides.-
12. Simple termination by Notice:
Without prejudice to Clause 11 above, the services employment of the 'Confirmed Employee' may be terminated at any time by either party giving one month's notice/three months' notice in the case of Senior Manager's & above in writing or basic/consolidated salary in lieu of thereof as liquidated damages."
19. It was further submitted by the Petitioner counsel that however no such notice or one month's wages in lieu of the notice for discharge or termination of an employee is required if the employee is being discharged or terminated from service on the charge of misconduct as may be proved by satisfactory evidences recorded in an enquiry held for that purpose.
20. It was further submitted that a bare reading of the scheme of section 26 of the B.S.E. Act, it would be evident that even in the case of termination simplicitor and/or discharge from service, an employer is required to state reasonable cause for which the employee is being terminated /discharged from services.
21. It has been submitted that from a bare perusal of the letter dated 11th February, 2016 it would be evident that the Petitioner -company in the said letter stated the reasonable cause available to it for termination of services of Respondent no 1, and, in the said letter itself, it was clearly stated that full and final payment would be made to the Respondent no 1 on completing the handing over formality by Respondent no 1.Hence the termination/discharge 5 2025:JHHC:35399 of Respondent no 1 was falling under first category, as provided under section 26(1) of the B.S.E. Act, wherein an employer was required to state reasonable cause and to either give one month's notice before termination or to pay one month's salary in lieu of the notice of termination.
22. It was contended that learned labour Court has wrongly held that since in the letter of termination of Respondent no 1, allegations of poor performance and bad behaviour is levelled, termination order was bad, as said allegations were not substantiated in a departmental enquiry.
23. It was further submitted by the petitioner- counsel that the said reasoning given by the learned Labour Court is completely contrary to the scheme of the B.S.E. Act and has an effect of rendering the words "reasonable causes" mentioned under section 26(1) otiose.
24. It was further submitted that mere acceptance of retrenchment compensation by Respondent no 1 would definitely disentitle Respondent no 1 to challenge his order of termination, especially in light of the fact that after discharge /termination of services of Respondent no 1, the Respondent no 1 has not raised any grievance regarding his termination. On the contrary, vide e-mails dated 29th February, 2016, 1st March, 2016 and 10th March, 2016, Respondent no 1 himself stated that he is accepting the order of termination from service and requested for payment of full and final settlement amount in his favour. There is not a whisper of any protest or grievance in any document on record.
25. It was contended that as per the terms of employment of Respondent no 1, Respondent no 1 would not have been paid any amount towards one month's salary in lieu of notice and/or amounts towards Gratuity, leave encashment, bonus etc., if the services of Respondent no 1 would have been terminated on proved charges of misconduct.
26. It has been submitted by the Petitioner counsel that the services of the Respondent no 1 was not terminated on the charges of misconduct, but since in the termination letter itself "reasonable causes" were reflected, the Petitioner-Company paid all the aforesaid amounts to Respondent no 1.
Thereafter, Respondent no 1 being fully aware of the said fact, accepted the said amount from the Petitioner by making repeated requests in that regard.
62025:JHHC:35399 Hence, the judgement relied upon by the learned Labour Court in the case of Nar Singh Lal versus Union of India and ors, reported in 2000 (3) SCC 588, was not applicable.
27. The Respondent no 1 in the document dated 7.4.2016 pertaining to details of full and final settlement has in his own handwriting has written , "As per our discussions after submitting 'C' Form my rest of amount 16303 to release as soon as possible", besides the declaration given by him that he has received the said amount towards full and final settlement of his dues and he has no claims, demand and dispute whatsoever from the Petitioner-Company, including his claim for reinstatement in the company. This clearly demonstrates that he has a clear understanding of the terms and conditions of his release from service.
28. In light of the above executed declaration of the full and final settlement dated 7.4.2016, a mere scribble of "RUP" in the supplementary payment details dated 28.04.2016 towards payment of amount of Rs.16, 303/- does not nullify the previous declaration.
29. It has been submitted that one cannot probate and reprobate at the same time. The Respondent no 1 was to choose to either accept or reject the entirety of Section 26(1) of Bihar Shops & Establishments Act, 1953 and Clause 12 of the terms of employment dated 17.09.2005.
30. Per contra it was submitted by the Counsel for Respondent no 1, that throughout his tenure with Petitioner Company he rendered his services and performed all his duties onerously and efficiently to the best of the satisfaction of his superiors.
31. It has further been submitted that during his entire service tenure he was stationed at Ranchi and used to work from Ranchi office situated at Kanke Road, Ranchi. The main job of the Respondent no 1 was to visit different prospective and existing clients at Ranchi, and take orders from them and thereafter send the same to Head of location situated at Jamshedpur for further fulfilment of the orders so taken.
32. It has further been submitted by the counsel for Respondent No 1 that upon the joining of Ravi Kumar Sinha at Ranchi office, the atmosphere of the office changed for the worse. Respondent no 1 faced humiliation, lobbying 7 2025:JHHC:35399 and de-motivation at the hands of Ravi Kumar Sinha which further led to acute mental stress.
33. It has further been submitted that after several complaints, verbal and written, no heed was paid by any of the superiors. Respondent no 1 again ventilated his grievance and sought justice through e-mail dated 11th February, 2016. In response thereto, the petitioner company through Mr Saurabh Rajput, sub-ordinate to HR Head sent his decision dated 11.02.2016 through e-mail dated 15.02.2016 sent at 03:52 PM to Mr. Ravi Kumar Sinha, who in turn informed the Respondent No 1 about the same on the same date.
34. It has been contended by the counsel for the respondent no 1 that many false and frivolous charges of misconduct were alleged against the Respondent No 1 and he was directed to reply within 3 days from receipt of the letter. Respondent no 1 immediately sent reply vide e-mail dated 15.02.2016 at 11:57 PM denying all the charges levelled against him.
35. It has further been submitted that instead of proceeding with a disciplinary action, the letter dated 11.02.2016 has been treated as an order of termination and thereby the complainant was directed to submit all the belongings of the company after which full and final settlement would be processed.
36. It is the contention of Respondent no 1 that the order of termination dated 11.02.2016 contains serious charges of misconduct which required domestic enquiry to be conducted giving all reasonable opportunity to Respondent no. 1 to defend himself. Admittedly, there was no enquiry conducted by the Petitioner Company and as such the order dated 11.02.2016 is bad in law and liable to be set aside.
37. It has further been submitted that several reminders were given by Respondent no 1 for release of his full and final settlement of accounts. Finally, the petitioner company released payment in two phases. Amount of Rs.62, 848.00 was paid on 7.4.2016 and Rs.16, 303.00 was paid on 28.04.2016 totalling to Rs.79, 151.00.
38. It was further contended that the aforesaid amount was less than the amount to which he was entitled to, hence, the Respondent no 1 received the 8 2025:JHHC:35399 amount under protest and wrote "RUP" (Received under Protest) in the receipts granted by the Petitioner Company.
39. It has been submitted that the Respondent Company requested the Petitioner Company to consider his case and allow him to continue in service, but all requests went in vain. Thereafter the Respondent No 1 filed a complaint petition before the Labour Court Ranchi vide Bihar Shops & Establishment Case No. 09/2016.
40. That vide order dated 28.06.2019 the learned Labour Court directed the management of Petitioner Company to reinstate the Respondent no.1back in service with half back wages and was further pleased to set aside the order of termination of Respondent No 1, and said order does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Hon'ble Court.
41. Having heard learned counsels of the parties, and perused the documents on record this Court is of the opinion that it is to be seen whether the impugned order dated 28.06.2019 by which the learned Labour Court directed the management of Petitioner Company to reinstate Respondent no.1 back in service with half back wages is legally tenable, in spite of the fact that Respondent no. 1 accepted the order of termination from service and further requested for and accepted payment of full and final settlement amount in his favour, especially in the absence of any protest letter on record on behalf of respondent no 1.
42. This Court is of the opinion that the letter of Release 11.02.2016 has been issued in terms of Section 26(1) of Bihar Shops & Establishments Act, 1953 and Clause 12 of the terms of employment dated 17.09.2005, wherein the "reasonable cause" has be clearly stated by giving reference to the deterioration in respondent no1's performance at work and failing to adhere to company ethics inter alia other things.
43. The subsequent communications of Respondent no 1 vide e-mails dated 1st March, 2016 and 10th March, 2016 after receiving the letter of release dated 11.02.2016 clearly establish the fact that Respondent no. 1 was in no way aggrieved by the same. Infact, the content of his e-mails only reiterates his willingness and eagerness to get the full and final settlement in his favour.
92025:JHHC:35399
44. It is an admitted fact that Respondent No 1 received an amount of Rs.62,848.00 on 7.4.2016 and Rs.16,303.00 on 28.04.2016 totalling to Rs.79,151.00 after being served letter of release dated 11.02.2016.
45. It was brought to the attention of this Court that Respondent no. 1 made an incorrect submission in para 26 of its complaint Case No. 09/2016, stating that since the amount of Rs.79,151 was less than the amount to which he was entitled to, he received the amount under protest and wrote "RUP".
46. The term "RUP" written by respondent no. 1 is not a recognised and approved abbreviation specific to this field, organisation or context, hence it cannot hold any significance. It is very evident from the conduct of respondent no 1 that from 11.2.2016 till 28.4.2016 Respondent no 1 did not protest. Conveniently after receiving the benefits of simplicitor termination, he proceeded to file the complaint case.
47. Upon perusal of the details of full and final settlement dated 7.4.2016 it was found that the para-26 submission of Respondent no 1 is contrary to the contents of the document dated 7.4.2016, where the Respondent no 1 received an amount of Rs.62,848/- without any protest and a declaration was given by him that he has received the said amount towards full and final settlement of his dues and he has no claims, demand and dispute whatsoever from the Petitioner-Company, including his claim for reinstatement in the company. Respondent no 1 did not approach the learned Labour Court with clean hands.
48. Further amount of Rs.16,303/- was retained by Petitioner Company which was recoverable from the Respondent no 1 due to non-receipt of statutory Form 'C' under the Central sales Tax Act, 1956 which was required to be collected by the Respondent no. 1. The Respondent no 1 in his own handwriting has written in the document dated 7.4.2016, "As per our discussions after submitting 'C' Form my rest of amount 16303 to release as soon as possible." This further fortifies the Respondent no 1's full agreement and understanding to the terms of release without an iota of ambiguity.
49. Learned Labour Court, while relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nar Singh Lal versus Union of India and ors, reported in 2000 (3) SCC 588, has wrongly held that merely because Respondent no. 1 has received the retrenchment compensation, it cannot be 10 2025:JHHC:35399 said that Respondent no 1 has surrendered all its constitutional rights and cannot challenge the order of termination because from a perusal of the documents on record no communication of protest exists. There is not a whisper of any protest in any communication.
50. There is a distinction between a case of dismissal on a charge of misconduct which is followed by enquiry and non-payment of admissible amounts payable upon release from services, and a case where employment is terminated for a reasonable cause accompanied by payment of admissible amounts payable upon release from services. Respondent no 1 would not have been paid any amount towards one month's salary in lieu of notice and/or amounts towards Gratuity, leave encashment, bonus etc., if the services of Respondent no 1 would have been terminated on proved charges of misconduct.
51. In view of aforesaid cumulative facts and circumstances of the case, writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 28th June, 2019 (Annexure-10) passed by Dr. Sanjay Kumar Chandhariyavi, Presiding Officer, Labour Court Ranchi in Bihar Shops & Establishment Case No.09/2016, wherein termination of services of Respondent No. 1 vide order dated 11.02.2016 has been set aside and the Management has been directed to reinstate the respondent No.1 in service with half backwages is quashed.
52. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Pending I.As. stands disposed of.
53. Let the original records be sent to the court concerned forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.) November 27, 2025 Amardeep/-
.A .F .R .
Uploaded 28/11/2025 11