Back
2015 Supreme(Raj) 493
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J.
R.S. Mehrish - Petitioner
Vs.
LIC of India & Anr. - Respondents
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.1946/1998
Decided On : 28.7.2015
Advocate Appeared:
Shri R.N. Mathur, Senior Advocate with Shri Rajesh Maharshi and Shri Sandeep Taneja for the petitioner.
Shri Anurag Agrawal for the respondents.
Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 226 and 227 - Submitting resignation - Sought to withdraw his resignation - Repeatedly harassed and victimized - Disbursement of his dues - Petition is directed against award of Central Industrial Tribunal claim petition preferred by petitioner was dismissed while holding resignation of the petitioner was voluntary - Petitioner had been working as a Development Officer with the respondent-Corporation since - He tendered his resignation from service was accepted on same day - Petitioner wrote a letter to Corporation - Petitioner vide application sought to withdraw his resignation stating therein he had offered resignation under duress as he was being harassed by respondent-Corporation and even his salary - Subsistence allowance and other dues were also not paid to him but no heed was paid to application not paid his salary for almost fifteen months and other benefits including payment of road tax and insurance premium he was legally entitled, had not been given - Learned counsel has also drawn attention Court to various letters written by petitioner to respondent-Corporation for disbursement of his dues - Respondent-Corporation that in case he resigns, all his dues would be cleared - He has also drawn my attention to fact resignation was accepted on very day when it was submitted - After acceptance of his resignation, not only his salary was paid but also increments were granted to him indicates that salary was intentionally withheld in order to compel petitioner to tender his resignation from service - Learned counsel submits petitioner was also not paid the subsistence allowance he has placed reliance upon judgment of Honble Supreme Court of India in State – Held, Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is truly wide but, for that very reason, it has to be exercised with great circumspection - It is not for High Court to constitute itself into an appellate court over tribunals constituted under special legislations to resolve disputes of a kind qualitatively different from ordinary civil disputes and to re-adjudicate upon questions of fact decided by those tribunals - Questions decide pertain to jurisdictional facts does not entitle High Court to interfere with the findings on jurisdictional facts which Tribunal is well competent to decide - Where circumstances indicate Tribunal has snatched at jurisdiction - High Court may be justified in interfering - Tribunal gets jurisdiction only if a reference is made and it is therefore impossible ever to say that Tribunal has clutched at jurisdiction do not think that it was proper for High Court to substitute its judgment for that of Court and hold that the workman had raised no demand with the management - Record find no perversity or patent illegality in award of the Industrial Tribunal and on the contrary must appreciate that it has minutely examined the evidence in arriving at its decision was inappropriate for the learned Single Judge to have reappraised the evidence and come to a different conclusion - Petition is dismissed
BY THE COURT:-
This writ petition is directed against the award of the Central Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur dated 10/01/1997 (Ann.21) whereby claim petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed while holding that resignation of the petitioner was voluntary.
2) The petitioner had been working as a Development Officer with the respondent-Corporation since 31/03/1967. He tendered his resignation from service on 11/06/1981 (Ann.11), which was accepted on the same day. After submitting resignation, petitioner wrote a letter to the Corporation on 15/06/1981 (Ann.10) disclosing reasons for submission of resignation.
3) Petitioner vide application dated 07/07/1981 (Ann.13) sought to withdraw his resignation stating therein that he had offered resignation under duress as he was being harassed by the respondent-Corporation and even his salary, subsistence allowance and other dues were also not paid to him, but no heed was paid to this application.
4) Hence, the petitioner challenged the order dated 11/06/1981, whereby his resignation was accepted by the respondent-Corporation, by preferring claim petition before the labour court, which was dismissed by the order, which is impugned in this petition.
5) Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner had been repeatedly harassed and victimized by the respondent-Corporation for a long period of time and he was not paid his salary for almost fifteen months and other benefits including the payment of road tax and insurance premium, to which he was legally entitled, had not been given. Learned counsel has also drawn attention of this Court to various letters written by the petitioner to the respondent-Corporation for disbursement of his dues. It has further been contended by the learned counsel that in 1979-80, the petitioner was not granted medical leave even though he was undergoing treatment by the government doctors as the respondent-Corporation insisted that he should be medically examined by a private doctor, who was on the panel of the Corporation. It is also contended that due to the aforementioned harassment, petitioner was compelled to tender his resignation as his dues were not cleared and he had been given assurance by the senior officers of the respondent-Corporation that in case he resigns, all his dues would be cleared. He has also drawn my attention to the fact that resignation was accepted on the very day when it was submitted. After acceptance of his resignation, not only his salary was paid but also increments were granted to him, which indicates that salary was intentionally withheld in order to compel the petitioner to tender his resignation from service. Learned counsel submits that petitioner was also not paid the subsistence allowance. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Maharashtra Vs. Chandrabhan Tale [(1983) 3 SCC 387], wherein it was held that non-payment of even subsistence allowance during the period of suspension is un-constitutional and departmental enquiry is liable to be set-aside on this ground alone as without payment of subsistence allowance, it would not be possible for the delinquent employee to defend himself in the departmental proceedings.
6) It was then submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner withdrew his resignation vide letter dated 07/07/1981 (Ann.13) and hence, this letter should have been acted upon and petitioner should have been allowed to withdraw his resignation. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Dr. Prabha Atri Vs. State of U.P. and others [AIR 2003 SC 534].
7) Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation has argued that the petitioner had resigned on his own volition and after acceptance of his resignation on 11/06/1981 itself, it was not open to the petitioner to have withdrawn the same as in any c
