Gyanendra Sahay vs Tata Iron & Steel Co. LTD.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2006 Supreme(SC) 608

2006(5) Supreme 484
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Jharkhand High Court)
Dr. AR. Lakshmanan & Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.
Gyanendra Sahay — Appelllant
versus
M/s Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1396 of 2006
Decided on 13-7-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : In-Person.
For the Respondent : Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate, M.K. Dua and T. Senshi Kumar, Advocates.

Headnote:LABOUR LAW - Pre-mature/voluntary retirement - Industrial dispute before Labour Court under Bihar Shops and Establishment Act that resignation by appellant was not voluntary and he was forced to submit application for pre-mature/voluntary retirement - Appellant was appointed Management Trainee with respondent Company and on 23-2-1994 he was posted in Engineering Cell - Appellant submitted his premature/voluntary retirement application on 1-4-1995 and request was accepted on same day - This subsequent request to withdraw his resignation on ground that he was compelled was rejected - Labour Court held appellant entitled to reinstatement in service with full back wages - High Court up-held award taking a view that since resignation was accepted on same day, same was quite unnatural and created doubt - Division Bench in appeal set aside the award - Appeal - Issue for re-consideration was whether appellant was compelled to write and sign the application for pre-mature/voluntary retirement due to undue and excessive pressure exercised by officers of respondent Company - Letter to resign was written in his own handwriting by appellant and he presented same in person - Appellant was given all the retiral benefits which would have otherwise been available to him at his superannuation - Vague allegation that he was forced to take retirement and Labour Courts conclusion was not supported by acceptable evidence - No interference was called for.
       Held : The appellant in his own handwriting submitted the letter dt. 01.04.1995 for premature/voluntary retirement which was accepted on the same day. When the letter was written in the handwriting of the appellant and presented the same in-person to the authority concerned, it cannot be said that the service of the respondent was dispensed with by the respondent-employer unauthorisedly.(Para 9)
       The request for premature/voluntary retirement was accepted by the management on 01.04.1995 with immediate effect. The letter also clearly states that the appellant will be entitled to all the retiral benefits of the Company which would have otherwise been available to him at his superannuation. The management has also stated that the appellants request for ex-gratia is being considered separately. By the said letter, the appellant was directed to get in touch with the General Manager (Finance & Accounts) for his full and final settlement.(Para 12)
       The appellant has made a vague allegation that he was forced to take retirement. Neither he has made it specific nor had given the name of any officer who compelled him to write the letter dt. 1st April, 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 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. The appeal has absolutely no merits and we, therefore, have no hesitation to dismiss the same and to affirm the order passed by the learned Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court.(Para 14)

JUDGMENT

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J. — This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi allowing the appeal filed by the respondent herein.

1) The appellant was appointed as Management Trainee with the respondent-company. He was confirmed as Executive Assistant in the office of Controller of Budgets at Jamshedpur. He was transferred to in the Mines Unit in August, 1989. On 23.02.1994, he was posted to perform his duties in the Engineering Cell.

2) According to the respondent herein, the appellant submitted an application on 01.04.1995 for his premature/voluntary retirement with a request to consider his case for payment of ex-gratia amount, in view of his long association with the company. The application for voluntary retirement was accepted on the same day i.e. 1st April, 1995. According to the appellant, he was compelled to retire prematurely and was compelled to submit application for compulsory retirement due to undue and excessive pressure, exercised by officers of the company. The appellant made request to re-consider his case sympathetically and reinstate him in service by revoking the retirement given to him and transfer him back to Jamshedpur in any suitable Department and also pay his increment for January, 1994 and January, 1995. The prayer was made to the management to consider his case sympathetically, specially because his entire settlement has been adjusted against his building loan with the result that after working for 15 years in the respondent-company, he does not know how to manage my family.

3) The respondent by letter dt. 22.06.1995 rejected the request of the appellant stating that since the appellant has resigned from service of the company from 1st April, 1995 and that his resignation has been accepted, it will not be possible to consider his case for employment in the company. The appellant raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court under the Bihar Shops & Establishments Act contending that his resignation was not voluntary and he was forced to submit the application for premature/voluntary retirement. The preliminary issue as to the maintainability of the matter before the Labour Court was also raised which was overruled by the Labour Court. Finally, the Labour Court held that the appellant is entitled to relief of reinstatement in service with full back wages and other consequential benefits.

4) Aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court, the respondent preferred Civil Writ Petition No. 3802 of 1999 before the High Court of Judicature at Patna, Ranchi Bench. Learned Single Judge of the said court after considering rival contentions was of the opinion that since the resignation was accepted on the same day and the complainant-appellant was relieved on the same day, the same was quite unnatural and that by itself created a doubt in the mind of the court. The learned Single Judge also held that the appellant was coerced to submit his resignation letter and the same was accepted on the same day and, therefore, it was not voluntary and it will amount of illegal termination of services of the appellant.

5) On being aggrieved, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench by its judgment dt. 24.01.2005 allowed the appeal filed by the respondent herein. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, the appellant has come before this Court by filing the Special Leave Petition No. 9744/2005. Leave was granted by this Court on 24.02.2006.

6) The appellant-in-person has argued his case. He invited our attention to various letters and correspondence that were exchanged between the appellant and the respondent-company and also drew our attention to the order passed by the Labour Court, the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench. He also invited our attention to the evidence led before the Labour Court. Since the appellant is a party-in-person, we allowed him to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document