Delhi District Court
The vs The on 19 August, 2008
COURT OF MS. SUJATA KOHLI
PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT II,
ROOM NO. 48, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
No. : 257/05
I.D.
Date of Institution of the case : 22/08/05
Date on which Judgment was reserved : 23/07/08
Date on which Judgment was pronounced : 19/08/08
B E T W E E N
The Workman, Sh. Upender Prasad S/o Sh. Munna Mehto C/o B278,
Janta Flat, Pul Prahlad Pur, Near Suraj Kund, N. Delhi44.
A N D
The Management, M/s. Anand International (India), D3, Okhla PhaseI,
N. Delhi20.
A W A R D
1.Reference was sent by Sh. Narendra Kumar, Secretary Labour, Government of NCT, Delhi on 22/04/05 vide reference No. F.24(410)/2005 Lab./197579 pertaining to an Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s Anand International (India) and its workman Sh. Upender Prasad, in the following terms of reference: "Whether the services of Sh. Upender Prasad S/o Sh. Munna Mehto have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management, and if so, to what sum of money as monetary relief along with consequential benefits in terms of existing laws/Govt. Notification and to what other relief is he entitled and what direction are necessary in this respect?"
2. Pursuant to the reference, claim was filed by the workman stating therein that he was employed with the management as a Helper w.e.f. 24/04/96 and used to work at a monthly drawn salary of Rs. 1050/ per month, however, his last drawn salary was @ Rs. 3650/ per month. He claims that he was working to the satisfaction of the management but that when workman made some demands regarding legal benefits and facilities under the labour laws like payment of allowance benefit, bonus and overtime etc., management started finding ways and means to harass the workman. Even the earned wages of the workman w.e.f. 01/06/04 had not been paid. However, it is stated that workman was on medical leave for the period from 05/06/04 till 18/06/04. Thereafter, when he joined duty on 19/06/04, no payment was made to him for the period w.e.f. 01/06/04.
3. It is further stated that on 05/07/04 workman, however, was not allowed to join duty, without assigning any rhyme or reason and as such it amounted to termination of his service by way of conduct of the management. Termination is alleged to be illegal and unjustified as neither any show cause notice was issued to the workman nor any charge sheet nor any enquiry was held. No advance notice nor any notice pay nor any retrenchment compensation was also paid to the workman, as such, termination of his service in this manner is alleged to be absolutely illegal and violative of provisions of I.D. Act besides being against principles of natural justice.
4. Workman lodged a written complaint firstly on 14/07/04 and then on 19/07/04, pursuant to which labour inspector Sh. O.P. Arya was deputed to persuade the management to arrive at the conciliation but to no avail. When workman approached the management for his balance dues, management further threatened him with using of the blank papers that management claimed was having with them under the signatures of the workman. As per the workman, management had obtained various papers from him when he was made permanent and he apprehend that management shall be using them in the case. Workman claims that he also lodged a report with the police to this effect.
5. Even conciliation proceedings were initiated in the labour department but to no avail and ultimately the dispute was referred to court for adjudication.
6. Workman claims to be unemployment ever since date of termination of his service, inspite of his best efforts to obtain an alternative job. He claims to be entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. It has been prayed accordingly.
7. In their W/s filed by the management, they have raised the preliminary objections; firstly that the present case is one of resignation by the workman and his already having taken his full and final dues and not one of termination. According to management, there is no cause of action in favour of the claimant.
8. In their reply on merits, the date of joining, rate of salary etc. all stand denied and on the other hand it is stated on behalf of management that the workman was appointed as a Helper w.e.f 01/06/2000 and that he worked upto 05/07/2004 and his last drawn salary was Rs. 3250/ per month.
9. As per the management, claimant submitted his resignation on 09/07/04 which was duly accepted by the management on the same day when his full and final accounts were also settled and claimant after receiving a sum of Rs. 17,925/ on 09/07/04 executed his signatures and thumb impressions on the full and final receipt. He also signed on the voucher as token of the receipt.
10. All other allegations of the workman regarding his having made demands upon the management for facilities etc. also stand denied. It is also denied that workman has not been paid his earned wages for the period from 01/06/04 till 18/06/04. It has been denied that workman was on medical leave from 05/06/04 till 18/06/04. As per the management, the claim as filed is false.
11. No rejoinder was filed to this reply. As such, pleadings being complete, following issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor on 29/03/06:
1. Whether workman resigned voluntarily from service and collected his full and final dues? OPM.
2. Whether the services of Sh. Upender Prasad S/o Sh. Munna Mehto have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management, and if so, to what sum of money as monetary relief along with consequential benefits in terms of existing laws/Govt. Notification and to what other relief is he entitled and what direction are necessary in this respect?
12. During evidence, workman examined himself as WW1 on his affidavit Ex. WW1/A and besides he tendered following documents in evidence:
1. Copy of ESI card, Ex. WW1/1.
2. Copy of demand notice dated 13/08/04, Ex. WW1/2.
3. Copy of demand notice dated 19/08/04, Ex. WW1/3.
4. Copy of complaint lodged with police dated 24/08/04, Ex. WW1/4.
5. Copy of letter dated 20/07/04 to the management, Ex. WW1/5.
6. Original postal receipt, Ex. WW1/6.
13. Management, on the other hand, examined Sh. Gajender Swaroop Sharma, General Manager, Personnel and Admn. as MW1 on his affidavit Ex. MW1/A. He did not tender any document in his examination in chief but relied on documents already produced during cross examination of workman from Ex. WW1/M1 till Ex. WW1/M9 being as under:
1. Copy of application form for job, Ex. WW1/M1.
2. Copy of appointment letter, Ex. WW1/M2.
3. Copy of nomination and declaration form, Ex. WW1/M3.
4. Copy of Employees Provident Fund form, Ex. WW1/M4.
5. Copy of specimen signature card, Ex. WW1/M5.
6. Copy of resignation letter, Ex. WW1/M6.
7. Copy of statement of dues, Ex. WW1/M7.
8. Copy of full and final receipt, Ex. WW1/M8.
9. Copy of voucher, Ex. WW1/M9.
14. Arguments heard. I proceed to decide the claim on the basis of material on record, in the light of arguments addressed on behalf of both parties. My findings on each issue are as under: ISSUE No. 1
15. As per the settled legal position, the burden to prove the plea of resignation and full and final settlement with the workman lies upon the management. Out of the documents relied upon by the management and which have been produced during cross examination of the workman, following are relevant to this issue; first being Ex. WW1/M6 resignation letter, the second being Ex. WW1/M7 statement of full and final dues clearance, Ex. WW1/M8 which is the receipt and Ex. WW1/M9 voucher for a sum of Rs. 17,925/. These documents were put to the workman during his cross examination by way of confrontation and to which he has clearly admitted his signatures as well as thumb impressions at the relevant points. All that his plea is that the documents when they were got signed from him were blank/unfilled. As per the basic principles of evidence, whenever any execution of a document stands admitted by a party and his only plea is that the documents were got executed by force, fraud or inducement or that when it was got signed the signatures obtained on blank papers, the burden to prove such kind of plea would shift upon the executant. Workman has not been able to discharge this burden to prove.
16. Towards this, he has relied upon one report lodged with the police, copy of which tendered in his evidence being as Ex. WW1/4, however, the complaint on the face of it is bearing a date 24/08/04 whereas it has been alleged by the workman that management had obtained his signatures on blank papers etc. when workman had been made permanent.
17. Going by the rest of the contents of the claim, although the workman has claimed that he joined the management on 24/04/96. As per the management, workman had joined in the year 2000. Ex. WW1/M1 & M2 which are the job application form and the appointment letter respectively, both show the year of joining by the workman as 2000 and there is no separate document showing any stage at which workman became permanent. Workman has been shown as a regular employee since beginning. Going by this, if signatures of the workman had been obtained in the year 2000 on blank papers, the complaint of the workman in the year 2004 would be quite irrelevant. Even if, going by the date of his alleged termination i.e 05/07/04, the complaint of the workman could have been lodged at least on 05th or the next day and not after waiting for one and a half months. The complaint is of little evidentiary value to prove that Ex. WW1/M6 to Ex. WW1/M9 were obtained by force. The cross examination of the workman on this point is being reproduced hereunder: "The documents Ex. WW1/M1 to Ex.
WW1/M9 bears my signature at point A and thumb impression at point B. Vol.
these documents were got signed by me and these were unfilled and blank at that time (workman does not specify even as to which time he refers to by the words 'at that time' neither in his claim or in his affidavit also workman has nowhere even pleaded the exact date and time and even the person who allegedly forced him to sign the documents blank) ....... It is wrong to suggest that I resigned voluntarily on 09/07/2004. It is wrong to suggest that I had received Rs. 17.924.90 paisa as my full and final settlement amount. I did not lodge any written complaint to the Labour Department regarding taking my signature on blank papers....... It is wrong to suggest that I have received my full and final settlement amount after submitting my resignation voluntarily".
18. From the entire cross examination of MW1, on the other hand, no such admission could be elicited which would go to establish even the mere stand that actually the resignation letter had not been tendered by the workman or that he had not received the full and final settlement or that the signatures of the workman had been obtained by the management on blank papers.
19. Since the resignation letter Ex. WW1/M6 stands proved and workman has failed to prove any other extra ordinary circumstance which may have led into his having been compelled to sign blank papers, the plea of the workman cannot be accepted and it is the version of the management that stands established as correct. Ex. WW1/M6 to Ex. WW1/M9 clearly establish that workman expressed his inability to work further with the management and he tendered his resignation and which was duly accepted on the same day i.e on 09/07/04 and he has also received the amount of Rs. 17,925/ on 09/07/04 itself as being full and final settlement. Now, workman cannot go back on the resignation after having accepted the amount of full and final settlement.
See : LLR Vol. XXXVII October 2006 No. 10, MP HC 1069 "Withdrawal of resignation by an employee will not be permitted when accepted".
Issue no. 1 accordingly decided in favour of the management and against the workman.
ISSUE No. 220. In view of the findings on issue no. 1, it is clear that present case is not one of termination, much less illegal and/or unjustified. Issue no. 2 is accordingly decided against the workman and in favour of the management.
In the result, the reference is answered against the workman. Claim as filed stands dismissed. Award is passed. Copy of the award be sent to appropriate government for publication within 30 days from the receipt of the award.
File be cosigned to record room.
Announced in the open court Today on 19/08/2008 (SUJATA KOHLI) Additional District & Sessions Judge Presiding Officer Labour CourtII, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.