Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 2528
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
G.S. SISTANI, SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, JJ.
K.K. Chakraborty - Appellant
Versus
Alankit Assignments Ltd. - Respondent
LPA 729 of 2017
Decided On : 07-08-2018
For the Appellant :Ms. Deepali Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Advocate with Ms. Shruti Arora, Advocate.
The court emphasized the importance of substantiating claims with valid evidence and upheld the principle of voluntary resignation.
Headnote:
Limitation Act - Condonation of Delay - Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963, Section 151 CPC - [LIAISON OFFICER EMPLOYMENT DISPUTE] - [Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 25F] - The court considered the issue of non-payment of salary to the appellant and the circumstances of his resignation. It analyzed the evidence presented and concluded that the appellant failed to substantiate his claim, and the respondent company was justified in not paying the salary. The court dismissed the appeal based on lack of merit.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a liaison officer, claimed non-payment of salary and illegal termination of employment. The respondent contended that the appellant failed to account for expenses and the salary was adjusted accordingly. The appellant's resignation under coercion was disputed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant failed to provide evidence to support his claim and concluded that the resignation was voluntary. It held that the respondent company was justified in not paying the salary and dismissed the appeal.
Issues: Non-payment of salary, alleged illegal termination, coercion in resignation, failure to account for expenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellant's failure to substantiate the claim and lack of evidence led to the court's decision. The court upheld the respondent company's actions based on the presented evidence.
Final Decision: The appeal lacked merit and was dismissed by the court.
G.S. SISTANI, J.
CM APPLN. NO. 41296/2017 (Delay)
This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 CPC seeking condonation of 02 days delay in filing the present appeal.
Heard. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the present appeal is condoned.
Application stands disposed of. LPA 729/2017
1. The appellant has preferred the present appeal assailing the order dated 18.09.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant herein against the Award dated 28.01.2017 passed by the Pilot Court/POLC-XVII, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated, the facts which are relevant for the disposal of this appeal as per the appellant are that in the year 1999, the appellant/K. K. Chakraborty was appointed by the respondent company/ Alankit Assignments Ltd, at a monthly salary of Rs.3,500/-along with Rs. 1000/-as conveyance charge. The appellant was promoted on regular basis with an increment in the salary. He alleged that he was assigned the work of depositing electricity bills, telephone bills and other miscellaneous bank work. It is the case of the appellant that the management of the respondent company stopped paying him salary w.e.f. January, 2013 and despite which he continued to work in the respondent company till 26.07.2013. He approached the management of the company on several occasions for payment of the amounts due but the same was denied to him on one ground or the other. On 26.7.2013, he was forced to render his resignation under force and detention by the Managing Director and staff of the respondent company. The appellant served a Demand Notice dated 18.09.2013 to the respondent company which remained unanswered. Thereafter, appellant initiated conciliation proceedings against the respondent company which was further referred to the Labour Court for adjudication of the Industrial Dispute. Vide order dated 28.11.2017, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi dismissed the claim of the appellant. Aggrieved by the said decision, the appellant preferred a writ petition, which was dismissed vide order dated 18.09.2017 by the learned Single Judge.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has strenuously contended before us that the basis of the impugned order dated 18.09.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge was, on the face of it, erroneous and unjustified. She has further contended that the appellant had never tendered his resignation voluntarily rather he was forced to write his resignation under threat, coercion and duress; that the services of the appellant was illegally terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947; that the evidence relied upon by the learned Single Judge is inadmissible in law. In order to substantiate her case, the counsel relied upon judgments in the case of Harjinder Singh v Punjab State Warehousing Corporation reported in (2010) 3 SCC 192, Prakash Rattan Lal v. Mankey Ram in C.M.(Main) No. 976/2007, Harihar Prasad Singh & Ors. v. Balmiki Prasad Singh reported in AIR (1987) 2 SCC 555, G.T. LAD & Ors. v. Chemicals & Fibres of India Ltd. reported in (1976) 1 SCC 590 and Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan & Ors. reported in AIR 1964 SCC 477. Hence, it is prayed that the order dated 18.09.2017 passed by the Single Judge and the Award dated 28.01.2017 are liable to set aside.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent company contended that the appellant was designated as a Liasion officer in a supervisory cadre in the administrative department of the company till the date of his resignation on 26.07.2017; that the work of the appellant was to collect amounts from the accounts department for incurring expenses for the liasioning work and for the year 2012-2013, appellant withdrew a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/-from the accounts department for the liasioning work but failed to
