Back
1993 Supreme(Bom) 376
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
A.V. Savant, J.
Blue star Limited ..... Petitioner
Versus
Blue Star Workers Union and another ..... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 1632 of 1993, decided on 25-8-1993.
Advocates appeared :
J.P. Cama with K.P. Anilkumar i/by R. Ravindras, for the petitioner.
S.J. Deshmukh with N.M. Ganguli, for respondent No. 1.
`
Headnote:Order 39, Rules 1 and 2-See Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 9-A.
Section 9-A - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Schedule IV, Items 9 and 10-Clvil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 39, Rules 1 and 2-Employ Hearing in complaint of, for W1fair practice against employer, pending-Interim relief to "-Whether it can granted in the circumstances of the case ?
Admittedly, therefore, the Scheme was not made public. It was not put up on the Notice Board at the Head Office of the Company, It was not communicated to the first respondent-Union. The conduct of the employee in filing the complaint immediately on the next day to the management coupled with the complaint to the police also lends credence, prima facie at this stage, to his story that he was pressurised and coerced to sign the papers on the 17th May, 1993 when he was taken to the Chambers of A. C mentioned the fact that the situation of the chambers at the Band Box Building at Worli would show that the Chambers of V, Vice-President of the Workers Union was nearby.
Looking at the manner in which the signatures have been obtained from an apparently gulliable employee, who only known to scribble some lines in Marathi, the Court has its own doubts about the communication of the Scheme to the employee and the knowledge of the same to the employee. The employee has 12 long years of service to go. He was drawing a salary of approximately Rs. 4000/- per month with a wife and three children dependant upon him.
As stated at the outset, he is fit and eligible to work. There is neither any domestic injury pending against him, nor is he threatened with any action. There is large scale unemployment in this country. In a city like Bombay, it is difficult to appreciate why an able-bodlCd person with 12 years of service left, would suddenly think of accepting Voluntary Retirement for a paltry sum of Rs. 2.5 lakhs. In case of surrender of tenancy under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, where a tenant surrenders his valuable rights under Section 15 of the said Act. Rule 9 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Rules, 1956 contemplates the Mamlatdar to hold an inquiry and satisfy himself that the tenant understood the nature and consequences of the surrender and that 11 was voluntary and he has to endorse his findings in that behalf on the instrument of surrender.
High Court is only citing an instance where surrender of valuable rights or relinquishing valuable rights has to be done in a manner free from doubt, particularly when the person concerned is not attributed with sufficient degree of knowledge and understanding. In the facts of the present case. High Court has own doubts about the employee-Hedulkar having known and understood the implications of the Early Voluntary Retirement Scheme and then exercise his volition on 17th May itself.
All the events have occurred hurriedly on the 17th May. There is, thus, prima Jacie, good reason to hold, at this stage, that there had been undue haste on the part of the petitioner Company in processing the voluntary retirement of the concerned employee.
The Court is also in agreement with the contention that prima Facie, at this stage, the conduct of the petitioner company does amount to an unfair labour practice within the meaning of Items Nos. 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the M. R. T. U. & P. U. L. P. Act.
Schedule IV, Items 9 and 10-See, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 9-A.
2. The petition seeks to challenge the interim order dated 23rd July, 1993 passed by the Industrial Court, Bombay, below Exhibit U-2 in Complaint (U.L.P.) No. 702 of 1993. Under the impugned interim order, the petitioner company has been restrained from retiring the concerned employee Krishna Hedulkar. The company has been further directed to permit Krishna Hedulkar to report on duty and to pay him regularly his wages. The complaint has been expedited, to be decided within a period of 6 months. A few facts may be stated as under.
3. Krishna Hedulkar has been employed with the petitioner company since 1st August, 1968. He has so far put in 25 years of service and his age is only 48 years. He is fit to work. The age of superannuation is 60 years. There is no domestic inquiry pending against him, much less is he facing any threat of dismissal. Hedulkar who is employed as an ordinary helper is stated to be educated upto 9th standard only and has a wife and three sons dependent upon him. His salary works out to Rs. 4,000/- per month approximately and the carry home salary is approx Rs. 3500/- p.m. On the 17th May, 1993 when he reported for duty, he is alleged to have met Shri Krishnamurthy, the Assistant Manager of the Company, who is alleged to have communicated the Early Voluntary Retirement Scheme to him. A writing has been obtained from Hedulkar between 9.00 and 9.45 a.m. on 17th May, 1993, which is in English. The writing opens with the statement that Hedulkar has understood the Early Voluntary Retirement Scheme communicated to him. It is admitted before me that no prior notice was given of the said Scheme, in the sense that it was not put up on the Notice Board nor communicated to the Union. The writing then shows that Hedulkar agreed to voluntarily retire and to accept Rs. 2, 50, 000/-. As stated earlier, he has as many as 12 years of service to go and his salary was approximately Rs. 4,000/- per month. Below the English writing, he has scribbled in Marathi that he was explained the contents in Marathi and has understood the same. In the afternoon of 17th May, 1993 itself Hedulkar was called to the Managers Office where he was paid the amount of Rs. 2, 50. 000/ by cheque plus Rs. 2075/- representing his salary for 17 days of the month of May, 1993 and Rs. 5/- towards the refund of Income-Tax which was wrongly deducted.
4. On the 18th May, 1993 when Hedulkar reported for duty, he submitted an application in Marathi, which was prepared by him on the 17th May, 1993 itself. The said application is eloquent. It sets out how Shri Krishnamurthy took him to the cabin of Shri Govind Advani and coerced him to sign the papers relating to voluntary retirement. He categorically states that he was desirous of continuing in service since he has a good record and there was no use his accepting Rs. 2,50,000/- in view of the premature retirement, sacrificing 12 years of service. He complained that he was not even allowed to go out to have a glass of water and he was threatened that if he did not accept the voluntary retirement scheme, he would lose his job and if he went to the Court, it will take years and he will get nothing. Rather than do this, he was coerced to accept Rs. 2,50, 000/-. This complaint of Hedulkar has been replied by the Company as late as on 24th May, 1993, where of course, the Company denies the allegation made by the employee.
5. In the meanwhile, on 21st May, 1993 the Union wrote to the Executive Vice-President of the Company pointing out that some employees were being forced to retire voluntarily without disclosing the details of the scheme to them. It states that no scheme was announced and it was the practice of many Companies to announce the Scheme openly to enable the employees to understand the same and decide whether they should opt for it or not. It was surprising that the p
