Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 2318
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. CHANDRU
M. Abdul Salam
Versus
The Presiding Officer, II Addl. Labour Court, Chennai & Another
W.P.No.26056 of 2007
Decided on: 05-06-2012
For the Petitioner:R. Rajaram, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R2 -Sanjay Mohan for M/s. S. Ramasubramanian Assoc, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove coercion in obtaining a resignation letter and the maintainability of a dispute under Section 2-A of the I.D. Act.
Headnote:
Labour Dispute - Termination of Service - Industrial Dispute Act, Section 2-A(2) - Standing Order No. 20 and 21 - The court discussed the resignation, retirement on medical grounds, and coercion in obtaining the resignation letter. The court also referred to relevant case laws to determine the maintainability of the dispute under Section 2-A of the I.D. Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an Award passed by the Labour Court and sought reinstatement with full back wages, alleging coercion in obtaining his resignation and disputing the acceptance of the resignation by the management.
Finding of the Court:
The Labour Court found that the worker had not proved that the resignation letter was obtained under duress and coercion, and held that the resignation was accepted by the management, thus dismissing the petitioner's claim for relief.
Issues: The issues included the voluntariness of the resignation, withdrawal of the resignation, and the maintainability of the dispute under Section 2-A of the I.D. Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the worker's admission of not being an office bearer of the Union and the denial of coercion by the management to conclude that the resignation was voluntary and not withdrawn. The court also referred to relevant case laws to determine the maintainability of the dispute under Section 2-A of the I.D. Act.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed by the court, upholding the Labour Court's decision and finding no grounds for interference.
1. The petitioner has come forward to challenge an Award passed by the first respondent Labour Court in I.D.No.230 of 1998 dated 23.02.2006 and after setting aside the same seeks for a direction to the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back wages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits.
2. The writ petition was admitted on 03.08.2007. On notice from this Court, the second respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated Nil February 1999. The petitioner also filed written submissions together with certain list of authorities.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he joined the second respondent as Typist cum Clerk in September 1977. During 1994, he claims to have joined the Addison Employees Progressive Union and took active part in the activities of the Union. The second respondent Management did not like the participation of the petitioner in the Union. The Assistant Manager one Clad Marshal Rajkumar warned the petitioner on several occasions about his Union activities. He also started putting pressure on the petitioner. On 29.07.1997, while he was working in the first shift from 7.00 am to 3.00 p.m, he had planned to go to the Provident Fund office directly from the factory. But as his reliever did not come, he was made to wait till 3.30 p.m. Even thereafter, his reliever did not come. Hence, he gave the store key to the casual labour and instructed him to hand it over the same to the reliever as soon as he turned up. For this incident, he was given a charge memo on 02.08.1997. The petitioner gave a reply on 07.08.1997. But the Management did not like his giving explanation. The Deputy General Manager (Personnel) by name A.Sivaraman, threatened him with dismissal from service and asked him to withdraw the explanation and to accept the charges. The petitioner refused to do so.
4. It was further stated that the Union, in connection with the implementation of its demands asked its members to wear black batch to show their protest to the Management. In respect of Tool Crib Stores section, the petitioner was the only person to wear black batch. Immediately thereafter, the Assistant Manager (Personal) on 23.08.1997 asked the petitioner to resign from the Union and also threatened the petitioner with foisting false criminal case. The petitioner told the Assistant Manager that it was not fair on his part to compel him to resign from the Union.
5. It was further stated that the Management normally supplies soaps (Hamam) to every employee to wash their face and hands after their work. Normally, unused soap will be taken by the workman. On 27.08.1997, after the third shift, the petitioner after washing his face and hands, while he was coming out of the factory, he was stopped at the gate by the security staff and he was accused of stealing Hamam soap belonging to the second respondent. Despite the petitioner explaining that it was an used soap given to him for washing his face and hands and that it was the normal practice of the employees to take the soap after use to their home. Accusing of stealing the soap, they allowed to go home. Thereafter, on 03.09.1997, the Assistant Manage called him to his cabin and told that he had received a compliant from the security staff regarding the petitioner stealing the Hamam soap belonging to the company. He further told him that he decided to give a police compliant against the petitioner. He also forced him to put his signature in blank paper by threatening to hand over him to Police.
6. Having left with no other option, the petitioner put his signature in a blank paper. The next day, the Assistant Manager (Personnel) called him and asked to resign from the Union. When he refused to do so, he was threatened that he would use the signed blank paper against him before the Police. He said that if he gave a letter expressing his desire to retire from company services on medical grounds, he would return the blank signed paper. Therefore,
