Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Sanjeev Narula, JJ.
Sh. Rohit Panjwani - Appellant
Versus
M/s Bses Rajdhani Power Limited & Ors. - Respondents
LPA 635 of 2023
Decided On : 18-09-2023
Resignation - Industrial Disputes Act - 1947, Section 2(s), Section 25F - The court discussed the resignation of the workman and the applicability of the Industrial Disputes Act. The court affirmed the finding that the workman resigned voluntarily and was not entitled to relief.
Fact of the Case:
The workman was appointed by a manpower consultant and worked with a power company. His services were terminated, and he approached the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court held that the workman resigned voluntarily and was not entitled to relief.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the workman resigned voluntarily and was not entitled to any relief as per the Industrial Disputes Act.
Issues: The issues included whether there was an employer-employee relationship, the maintainability of the claim, and the legality of the termination of services.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the workman resigned voluntarily, and the resignation was not taken under coercion. The court also emphasized the voluntary withdrawal of the resignation and the lack of evidence to support coercion.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the finding that the workman resigned voluntarily and was not entitled to relief.
JUDGMENT
Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J. (Oral) - The present Letters Patent Appeal is arising out of judgment dated 18.04.2023 passed in W.P.(C.) No. 4831/2023, by which the learned Single Judge has affirmed the Award dated 28.10.2022 passed by the Labour Court in LID No.583/2016.
2. The facts of the case reveal that the appellant/workman was appointed as Field Executive on 12.01.2004 by M/s Safeguards Manpower Consultants and he was directed to work with M/s BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.(BSES-RPL), w.e.f. 13.01.2004 to 30.09.2006.
3. The facts further reveal that the name of the company M/s Safeguards Manpower Consultants was subsequently changed to M/s Safeguards Human Resourcing Pvt. Ltd. and the workman continued to work with the employer as he was appointed by M/s Safeguards Human Resourcing Pvt. Ltd. though he was offering his services at BSES-RPL. He continued to work up to 28.06.2013 and his services were terminated - as stated by the workman, on 28.06.2013.
4. Against his discontinuance, the workman took shelter under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act) and approached the Labour Court. The following issues were framed by the Labour Court:
"i. Whether there existed any relationship of employer and employee between the management No. 1 and 2, and workman? OPW
ii. Whether statement of claim filed by the workman under Section 2 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against management No. 4 is no maintainable inasmuch as management No. 4 was not a party to the conciliation proceedings under Section 2A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. If so, to what effect? OPM4.
iii. Whether statement of claim filed by the workman against management No. 4 is no maintainable inasmuch as workman was not in the employment of management No. 4 in the year preceding the date of alleged termination of his services as pleaded in the statement of claim? OPM4.
iv. Whether the workman worked with the management(s) and his services were terminated illegally/unjustifiably by the management(s) in terms of averments made in the statement of claim? If so, to what relief, and against which management, workman is entitled ? OPW
v. Relief."
5. The Labour Court has finally passed an Award dated 28.10.2022 in LID No.583/2016 holding that the workman has resigned from the service of the Management voluntarily and, therefore, he is not entitled to any relief as he has not been terminated illegally & unjustifiably - as stated by the workman.
6. The workman - being aggrieved by the Award dated 28.10.2022, has approached this Court by filing W.P.(C.) No. 4831/2023, and the finding of fact arrived at by the Labour Court has been affirmed by the learned Single Judge.
7. The learned Single Judge has held that the workman did resign on 20.09.2013 and he made a bald plea that he was forced to submit his resignation on 20.09.2013 without any substance and without there being any supporting evidence. Learned Single Judge has also arrived at a conclusion that immediately after submitting his resignation, the workman applied for release of his provident fund and did not raise any grievance for about four months and it was only on 27.01.2014, that he made a request for withdrawal of his resignation, which request was rejected by the employer. The learned Single Judge - after referring to the Award, in paragraphs 5 to 8 of the impugned judgment, has held as under:
"5. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and peruse the record, I find no merit in the Petitioner's plea. I am unable to accept the Petitioner's bald plea that he was forced to submit his resignation on 20.09.2013. If as sought to be contended by learned counsel for petitioner, the petitioner had indeed been forced to submit his resignation, there was no reason for him to seek release of his provident fund soon after submitting his resignation. There is also no explanation by the petitioner as to why he did not raise any grievance in this regard for more than four mon
The main legal point established is that the voluntary resignation of the workman led to the denial of relief under the Industrial Disputes Act.
The court ruled that employees in managerial roles and earning above Rs.10,000 do not qualify as 'workmen' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, reversing the Labour Court's decision.
A resignation, if properly communicated and accepted, constitutes valid termination, challenging the Labour Court's finding of illegal termination when the evidence suggests otherwise.
The definition of 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act excludes managerial employees, and the High Court cannot re-evaluate evidence in writ proceedings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for compliance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, particularly in cases of termination and retrenchment, and....
Factual findings of the Labour Court cannot be dislodged unless there is a jurisdictional error, violation of principles of natural justice, or error apparent on the face of the record.
The court's decision emphasized the importance of proving regularisation claims under relevant settlement agreements and upheld the Tribunal's findings based on evidence.
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
