Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. vs N. P. Rao

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1989 Supreme(Pat) 403

HIGH COURT OF PATNA
B. P. SINGH & S. B. SINHA, JJ.
Dr. N. P. Rao : Appl. 91/89
Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. : Appl. 65/89
B. P. Singh : Appl. 67/89
M/s. Tata Robins Fraser Co. Ltd. : Appl. 63/89
Vs.
Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. & Ors. : Resp. 91/89
Dr. N. P. Rao & anr. : Resp. 65/89
The Presiding Officer & anr. : Resp. 67/89
The Presiding Officer & anr. : Resp. 63/89
L. P. A. Nos. 91, 65, 67 and 63 of 1989(R)
Decided On : 17-11-1989

Advocates Appeared:
For the appellant : M/s. Tapen Sen & S. L. Agrawal (in 91/89); M/s. K. D. Chatterjee, P.S. Dayal, N. C. Ganguli, B. P. Verma, Kalidas Chatterjee & Neelima Thakur (in 65/89); M/s. Keshav Prasad & Sunil Kumar Sinha (in 67/89); and M/s. K. D. Chatterjee, U. K. Sarkar & Kalidas Chatterjee (in 63/89;
For the respondents: M/s. K. D. Chatterjee, P. S. Dayal, N. C. Ganguli, B. P. Verma, Kalidas Chatterjee & Neelima Thakur (in 91/89), M/s. Tapen Sen & S. L. Agrawal (in 65/89), M/s. K. D. Chatterjee, U. K. Sarkar & Kalidas Chatterjee (in 67/89), M/s. Keshav Prasad & Sunil Kumar Sinha (in 63/89).

Headnote:Bihar Shops & Establishment Act, 1953-Section 26(2)-“otherwise termination of service” -meaning of-resignation tendered by the employee not voluntarily but as a result of coercion or force-service of the employees regulated by statutory provisions-whether order in writing is a condition precedent for invoking jurisdiction of the Labour Court under section 26-whenever a tender of resignation is brought about by an Act, of the employer coupled with his acceptance thereof and not on account of volition on the part of the employee but on account of positive acts of omissions and commissions on the part of the employer, such as force, threat etc. the same becomes a positive Act, on the part of the employer as soon as it is accepted-in such cases not necessary to have an order in writing by specifically terminating services-the Act, of employer in obtaining a forced resignation shall cover the terminology "or otherwise terminates" and a complaint petition is maintainable. (AIR 1960 SC 1110, 1978 LIC 1321, 1979 LIC 234, 1984 LIC 100, 1989 LIC 1406 Relied Upon; 1970 LIC 1620, 1984 PLJR 832 Referred; 1977 BBCJ 711, 1981 LIC 765 -Distinguished). (Paras 59, 60, 64 to 67, 75 to 79, 85, 87 & 88)
Bihar Shops & Establishment Act, 1953-Section 26-complaint petition by employee containing allegation of coercion and threat in obtaining letter of resignation by the employer-resignation letter and acceptance kept ready and pre-typed-complaint filed soon thereafter-pleadings-Labour Court giving findings that letter of resignation obtained by threat or coercion and not voluntary-sufficient pleadings in complaint petition and no lack of material particulars and requisite pleading to constitute 'forced resignation' had been made out by the employee-required no interference. AIR 1951 SC 177, AIR 1987 SC 1242, AIR 1988 SC 2165, AIR 1989 H. P. 51-Relied Upon; AIR 1927 PC 230, AIR 1931 Bom. 97, AIR 1942 PC 40, AIR 1976 SC 461, AIR 1977 SC 1198, (1983) 3 SCC 118, AIR 1989 M. P. 271-Referred to. (Paras 99, 103, 107, 114, 116, 137 & 139)
Interpretation of Statutes-Bihar Shops & Establishment Act, 1953-Section 26 and Section 2A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-external aid of construction of a word is possible when the same word has been interpreted in a particular manner in other statues which are in pari materia-section 2A of I.D. Act, is enacted for the same purpose for which section 26 of Shops Act, has been enacted-both have been enacted in terms of items 23 and 24 of List III of 7th Schedule of the Constitution-Bihar Shops & Establishment Act, supplements the Industrial Disputes Act. 1987(55) FLR 498-Relied Upon. (Paras 80 to 83)

JUDGMENT

S. B. Sinha, J.

All these Letters Patent Appeals, with the consent of the parties, were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The basic facts of the case are not much in dispute.

3. Dr. N. P. Rao, appellant in L. P. A. No. 91/89 (R) and respondent no. 1 in L. P. A. No. 65/89 (R) and Sri B. P. Singh, appellant in L. P. A. No. 67/89 (R) and respondent no. 2 in L. P. A. No. 63/89 (R), filed application before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court at Jamshedpur under Section 26 (2) of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which were registered as B. S. E. Case No. 2 of 1984 and B. S. E. Case No. 12 of 1987 respectively.

4. In their complaint petition, Dr. N. P. Rao and Sri B. P. Singh alleged that the management obtained letters of resignation from them forcibly upon threat, coercion and intimidation and thus the same amounts to termination of their service.

5. In the aforementioned cases under Section 26 (2) of the Act, the management, inter alia, took an objection that the submission of a letter of resignation does not come within the purview of dismissal, discharge or otherwise termination of services inasmuch as the same requires passing of a positive order by the management and in absence thereof, a complaint petition under Section 26 (2) of the Act, would not be maintainable.

In the alternative, it was submitted that in any event as the complainants did not plead particulars of fraud or coercion etc. nor adduced any evidence in this regard, the complaint petitions were liable to be dismissed.

6. The Presiding Officer, Jamshedpur, however, by reason of an order dated 8-9-1988 passed in B. S. E. Case No. 2 of 1984 (Sri N. P. Rao vs. Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd.), an order dated 17-12-1988 passed in B. S. E. Case No. 12 of 1987 (Sri B. P. Sinha v. Tata Robin Fraser Ltd.) held that the complaint petitions filed by the complainants aforementioned were maintainable under Section 26 (2) of the Act, and further held that the purported letters of resignation being not voluntary ones, the same would come within the purview of 'otherwise terminated' as contemplated under Section 26 (2) of the Act, and on the basis of the said findings granted appropriate relief’s to the said complainants.

7. M/s Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court in B. S. E. Case No. 12 of 1987, filed a writ application in this Court which was marked as C. W. J. C. No. 93 of 1989 (R).

M/s Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. purported to be aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court in B. S. E. Case No. 12 of 1987 filed a writ petition in this Court which was marked as C.W.J.C. No. 2234 of 1988 (R).

8. C.W.J.C. No. 93 of 1989 (R) and C.W.J.C. No. 2234 of 1989 (R) were heard together by a learned Single Judge of this Court and by a judgment dated 13th April, 1989, the said petitions were allowed and the cases were remitted back to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur with certain directions.

9. By reason of the aforementioned judgment, the learned single Judge held that if a letter of resignation is obtained by fraud or coercion, the same would amount to termination of services of the concerned employee by the employer and thus a complaint petition at the instance of the employee under Section 26 (2) of the Act, would be maintainable.

10. The learned single Judge, however, held that in the said cases, the complainants had failed to plead particulars of fraud etc. as is required under Order VI, Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code, and as such, they were not entitled to the relief’s granted in their favour by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur on the basis of the pleadings and evidences adduced on their behalf.

The learned Single Judge, however, remitted the matters back to the Labour Court at Jamshedpur, with a direction that the said court shoul

Click Here to Read the rest of this document