Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Reliance Integrated Services Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Mr. Satyananda Mohanty – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 5661 of 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.19958 OF 2022
Decided on : 01-09-2023
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971- Section 28 - Revision Application - Challenged – Held, even though resignation of Respondent is found to be not validly accepted by Petitioner, relief of reinstatement cannot be given in favour of Respondent - In these peculiar facts and circumstances of case, Court of view that relief in favour of Respondent is required to be molded in light of fact that though his secession from service is not strictly valid, relief of reinstatement is in present case is not warranted - Award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement would be appropriate in present case – Respondent rendered services with Petitioner- Company since the year 2006 and put in roughly eight years of service - His secession from services is found to be erroneous only on account of failure on part of Petitioner in not specifically accepting his resignation and not communicating such acceptance to Respondent – It is Respondent who tendered his resignation by generating a separation request - Writ Petition is disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties, the Petition is taken up for final hearing.
2. By this Petition, Petitioner challenges Judgment and order dated 15 November 2019 passed by the Member, Industrial Court in Revision Application (ULP) No. 25 of 2018 as well as Judgment and order dated 3 January 2018 passed by Labour Court, Thane in Complaint (ULP) No.107 of 2014. The Labour Court, by its Judgment and order dated 3 January 2018, has directed reinstatement of Respondent with full back wages and continuity of service with effect from 7 July 2014. The Industrial Court has proceeded to reject the Revision Application filed by Petitioner challenging the order of Labour Court.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Petitioner is a Company, subsidiary of Reliance Communication Limited and is engaged inter alia in providing telecommunication related service to its’ customers. Respondent joined services of Petitioner-Company with effect from 1 March 2006. It is Petitioner’s case that the Respondent voluntarily resigned from services of Petitioner-Company on 4 July 2014 by way of submitting Separation Request through E-portal. That he did not report for duties from 5 July 2014. Accordingly, he was paid all his legal dues including monthly wages for the month of July 2014, amount of Rs.44,979/- on 6 September 2014 towards full and final settlement and gratuity amount of Rs.67,366/- on 9 September 2014.
4. Respondent approached Labour Court, Thane by filing complaint (ULP) No.107 of 2014 under the provisions of Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ( herein after referred to as for short “MRTU & PULP Act”) seeking his reinstatement in service with full back wages and continuity. It was Respondent’s case before the Labour Court that he was on sanctioned leave from 3 July 2014 to 5 July 2014 and that he received a telephonic call on 5 July 2014 from a Manager of the Company asking him not to report for duties from 7 July 2014 onwards. That, the management had decided to terminate his service from 7 July 2014 and when the Respondent attempted to report for duties on 7 July 2014, his access to the office was disabled. Respondent accordingly termed secession of his service as termination and sought relief of reinstatement in the Labour Court.
5. The Petitioner-Company appeared in the complaint filed by Respondent and opposed the same on various grounds including maintainability and jurisdiction. By order dated 27 July 2015, the Labour Court held that it had jurisdiction to decide the complaint. Petitioner- Company challenged the order of the Labour Court dated 27 July 2015 before the Industrial Court, Thane by filing Revision Application No.72 of 2015 which came to be rejected by the Industrial Court by order dated 30 November 2015. The challenge to the jurisdiction was not taken further by Petitioner. The Petitioner filed written statement opposing the complaint filed by Respondent.
6. Respondent filed application for grant of interim relief in Complaint (ULP) No.107 of 2014 which came to be rejected by the Labour Court by its order dated 29 January 2016. The decision of the Labour Court was upheld by the Industrial Tribunal by dismissing the Revision Application No.29 of 2016 filed by the Respondent.
7. The parties thereafter led evidence in Complaint (ULP) No.107 of 2014, the Respondent examined himself. On behalf of the Petitioner, evidence of Mr. Bhagwan B. Umbargonde, Manager-H.R. and Mr. Shankar Rajesh Adep, incharge of I.T. department was adduced.
8. The Labour Court by its Judgment dated 3 January 2018 allowed Respondent’s complaint by holding that Petitioner had indulged in unfair labour practice in Item Nos.1(b)(d) & (f) of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act. The Labour Court directed reinstatement of Respondent with full back wages and continuity of service with effect from 7 July 2014. Petitioner filed Revisi
A resignation must be unconditional and comply with procedural requirements; failure to do so renders it invalid.
Resignation under duress requires substantial evidence, and voluntary acceptance of severance negates claims of coercion.
A resignation must be voluntary; prior acceptance is not mandatory for it to take effect, with the defining factor being the nature of the employee's role under the Industrial Disputes Act.
A resignation accepted unconditionally cannot be withdrawn unilaterally, and a suit for declaration regarding continuation in service is not maintainable if the employee is not classified as a workma....
An employee cannot withdraw his resignation after it has been accepted by the employer.
A resignation cannot be withdrawn after its acceptance.
The burden of proof lies on the employer to establish the voluntary nature of the workman's resignation, and the court emphasized the principles governing the payment of back wages.
An employee's resignation can be withdrawn before acceptance even if made conditionally, as long as the relationship has not been severed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
