S.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by M/s Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd., Singhbhum (East), Jamshedpur (hereinafter to be referred to as "M/s. TISCO") against the judgment dated 3rd June, 2003, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 3802 of 1999-R; whereby and where under, the writ application, filed on behalf of the appellant, has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent Gyanendra Sahay was appointed as Management Trainee under the appellant M/s TISCO and placed up to the rank of Deputy Manager. In the year, 1993 he was transferred in the Mines Division and again in the year, 1994 he was posted to perform his duties in the Engineering Cell.

According to the appellant, the respondent submitted an application on 1st April, 1995 for his premature/voluntary retirement with a request to consider his case for payment of ex-gratia amount, in view of his long association with the Company. The application for voluntary retirement was accepted on the same day i.e. 1st April, 1995.

On the other hand, according to the respondent, he was compelled to retire prematurely and was compelled to submit application for compulsory retirement due to undue and excessive pressure, exercised by the officers of the Company.

3. From the records it transpires that after one and half month, the respondent vide his letter dated 19th May, 1995 requested the Managing Director of M/s TISCO to revoke the order, contained in Letter No. AO/6458/95 dated 1st April, 1995. whereby the General Manager (Ore Mines and Quarries) of M/s TISCO had accepted the request of the respondent for his volun tary retirement with immediate effect. In the said letter the respondent for the first time made an allegation that on 1st April, 1995 all those officers, who had not got increments for last two yeark Le. January, 1994 and January, 1995 were forced to take retirement and he was also a victim to it.

4. Thereafter, his prayer having been rejected by M/s TISCO vide letter dated 26th June, 1995, issued by the Director (Corporate Liaison), the respondent preferred an application under Section 26 of the Shops and Establishment Act, (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur, which was registered as B.S.E. Case No. 15 of 1995. The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur, formulated the following points for consideration :

(i) Whether the complaint petition under the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act is maintainable?

(ii) Whether the so called premature retirement letter (Ext. A) has been signed and submitted by the applicant/complainant voluntarily or the complainant has been compelled to write the same and signed under undue and excessive pressure exercised by the officer of the company?

(iii) Whether the acceptance of so called premature retirement letter (Ext. A) amounts to termination of services of the complainant?

(iv) Whether complainant is entitled to relief for reinstatement with full back wages and other consequential benefits or any other relief?

5. The main issue i.e. "whether the respondent was compelled to write and sign the application for voluntary/premature retirement under undue and excessive pressure, exercised by the officer of the Company" was answered in affirmative. Learned Presiding Officer by its order dated 4th October, 1999, passed in B.S.E. Case No. 15 of 1995, held that so called letter of voluntary/premature retirement was not given voluntarily but it was obtained by officers with a view to terminate his ser vice. This finding has been affirmed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 3rd June, 2003, passed in CWJC No. 3802 of 1999-R.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the petitioner under Section 26 of the Act was not maintainable against an order, accepting the request for voluntary retirement. He has relied on a Division Bench decision of the Madras High Court in the case of C.R. Ramasw