The court reaffirmed that resignations obtained under coercion must be substantiated with concrete evidence, and in the absence of such proof, employees cannot be classified as 'workmen' under the Industrial Disputes Act.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. ADMIT. Learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave, waives service of notice of admission on behalf of the respondent – Elecon Engineering Company Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent - Company”).

2. With consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matters are taken up for final hearing and are disposed of by this common judgment and order.

3. The captioned Letters Patent Appeals, filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865, are directed against the common judgment and order dated 24.12.2024 passed in the captioned writ petitions, wherein and whereby, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petitions filed by the respondent – Company, challenging the award dated 27.09.2022 passed by the Labour Court, Anand in Reference (T) No.66 of 2014 and allied references. The employees of the respondent – Company had raised a demand for reinstating them with continuity of service. Accordingly, the dispute was referred, which has culminated into the reference proceedings. 4. The Labour Court allowed the reference proceedings in favour of the appellant – employees and directed the respondent – Company to reinstate its employees i.e. the appellants with continuity of service on their original posts.

BRIEF FACTS :

5. The short issue, which fell for deliberation before the learned Single Judge and also before us, is as to whether the employees (appellants) were compelled to offer their resignation or in the alternative, they had tendered the resignation on a false promise given to them by the respondent – Company. It is alleged that since the Company was facing huge financial loss, the employees were coerced by the Company to tender their resignation, and after two or three months, they would be again taken back in the service. It is not in dispute that requisite amount, which was paid to the appellants, at the relevant time, after they offered their resignation, is accepted by them.

6. The facts reveal that there were around 676 employees, out of 1300 employees, who tendered their resignation and an amount of Rs.8,24,68,297/- was paid to such employees. As recorded by the learned Single Judge, out of 676 employees, 18 employees have raised an industrial dispute challenging to such resignation. However, today when the matters are taken up for hearing, it is reported by the learned advocates that there are 30 employees out of 676 employees, who have raised an industrial dispute challenging the action of accepting their resignation. The Labour Court has held that the action of the respondent–Company in relieving these employees amounts to a termination, which is in contravention of Section 23 (1) of the Model Standing Orders. It is also in violation of the provisions of Sections 25N, 25F, 25G, and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the I.D. Act").

7. In the course of the reference proceedings before the Labour Court, two primary issues emerged for determination: (i) whether the appellants–employees fall within the definition of "workman" under the I.D. Act; and (ii) whether their separation from service, purportedly by way of acceptance of resignation, amounts to "retrenchment" as defined under Section 25N of the I.D. Act. Upon consideration of the material on record, the Labour Court answered both the issues in favour of the employees and held that the action of the respondent–Company constituted illegal retrenchment. Consequently, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the concerned employees. The same has been assailed by the respondent – Company in