Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 5612
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
P. Jyothimani, J.
P.N. Balasubramanian – Appellant
Versus
Presiding Officer, I Additional Labour Court and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 35076 of 2004
Decided On : 22-12-2010
For the Appellant : K.M. Ramesh
For the Respondent: S. Raveendran, for T.S. Gopalan and Company
The acceptance of a settlement amount under a voluntary separation scheme leads to the cessation of the jural relationship between the employer and the employee, precluding further claims for benefits such as pension. The Court's decision also emphasized the limited scope of interference in Labour Court awards under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
Pension - Employment Dispute - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 18(1) - General Office Orders - Civil Appeal No. 1450 and 1458/1990 - I.D. No. 556/1993 - I.D. No. 16/1991 - I.D. No. 55/1968 - W.P. No. 4696/1975 - (2008) 3 LLJ 687 - 2010 XI LLJ 175 (Mad) - (1991) 1 SCC 326 Supp - (1997) 1 SCC 134 - (2000) 7 SCC 522
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner, an employee of EID Parry (India) Limited, filed a writ petition against the dismissal of industrial dispute related to his entitlement for pension benefits under General Office Orders. The dispute arose from the Petitioner's participation in a voluntary separation scheme and the signing of a settlement under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Finding of the Court:
The Labour Court found that the Petitioner failed to prove that he signed the settlement under coercion and threat of transfer. It also concluded that the Petitioner's actions, including encashing the settlement amount and sending a complaint letter after receiving the amount, indicated lack of bona fide intention. The Court held that the Petitioner's claim for pension benefits after opting for voluntary separation and accepting the settlement amount was not sustainable.
Issues: Coercion in signing the settlement under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, entitlement to pension benefits under General Office Orders, and the validity of challenging the settlement in an industrial dispute raised under Section 2A(2) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was based on the lack of evidence supporting the Petitioner's claim of coercion in signing the settlement and the acceptance of the settlement amount, which led to the cessation of the jural relationship between the employer and the employee. The Court also considered the applicability of previous judgments and the scope of interference in Labour Court awards.
Final Decision: The Court confirmed the award of the Labour Court, dismissing the writ petition and upholding the finding that the Petitioner's claim for pension benefits after opting for voluntary separation and accepting the settlement amount was not sustainable.
P. Jyothimani, J.
The writ petition is filed by the Petitioner/employee against the common award passed by the I Additional Labour Court, Chennai in I.D. No. 556/1993 insofar as it relates to the claim of the Petitioner for computation of benefits to which he in entitled as per the terms of General Office Orders of EID Parry (India) Limited, the second Respondent.
2. The second Respondent is engaged in the manufacture and sale of sugar, fertilizer pesticides, chemicals, ceramics, etc. having branches all over India. The Petitioner joined as a Clerk on June 1, 1962 and having worked in various branches, he lastly worked as Clerk in Farm Inputs Division, Dare House, Chennai. He became a member of EID Staff Association, which is a registered Union and he worked as an Executive Committee Member.
(a) Under the General office Orders issued by the second Respondent, as per Clause 26, the employees are entitled for full pension, if they complete 30 years of service and in case where an employee has put in more than 20 years of service, he is entitled to proportionate pension.
(b) The dispute regarding payment of pension with the second Respondent was ultimately settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1450 and 1458/1990, wherein it was held that the second Respondent, is liable to pay pension to its employees under General Office Order No-26. It in also stated that several claim petitions filed before the Labour Court based on the same were allowed.
(c) There was a charter of demands submitted on March 31, 1989 and May 31, 1989 before the second Respondent by the EID Parry Staff Association and that was not considered and the matter was referred for conciliation and ultimately the dispute was referred in I.D. No. 16/1991 on the file of Industrial Tribunal, Chennai. That related to the claims of 244 workmen for enhanced D.A. and other benefits. There was an interim award passed by 'the Tribunal in favour of the workmen against which writ petitions were filed followed by appeals.
(d) It is stated that the second Respondent in order to divide the Union, made five of Committee members to file a settlement before the Tribunal entered u/s 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and based on the said settlement between the management and five members of the Committee of the Union, The Tribunal passed an award which has bean challenged in the writ petitions.
(e) The Tribunal passed the award in I.D. No. 16/1991 on April 27, 1992 and the Petitioner has questioned the Settlement entered with five Committee members u/s 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On June 26, 1992, the Petitioner was informed that he was under the orders of transfer to Delhi and in his interest, the Petitioner wanted to retire from service under voluntary separation scheme.
(f) It is stated that the Petitioner was informed by the General Manager, Mr. Ramesh Rao that under the said scheme, he would be paid 1,20,000/- as compensation apart from other benefits like, provident fund, gratuity, encashment of leave, etc. and if the Petitioner was not willing for the voluntary separation, he would be transferred to Delhi.
(g) It is stated that at that time, the Petitioner got salary of 3750.50 per month and since he was unable to go to Delhi, he accepted to go for voluntary separation scheme on the basis that he would be paid 1,20,000/- for the rest of his service apart from other benefits. It is stated that the Manager, Accounts, farm Inputs Division obtained his signature in the copy of the letter addressed to Deputy General Manager, Marketing, Form Inputs Division and in the said letter, a sum of 1,20,000/- representing the amount of compensation was also filled by the Petitioner apart from filling up the address.
(h) It is stated that, on July 3, 1992, the Petitioner was paid 1,37,111.27 which includes the compensation of 1,20,000/- under voluntary separation scheme, 6285.77 towards leave wages:, 7217/- toward ex gratia payment and 3608.50 towards noti
