Resignation under duress requires substantial evidence, and voluntary acceptance of severance negates claims of coercion.

CAV ORDER

The petitioner - Establishment is before this Court assailing the award dated 23.09.2023 in Reference No.24/2015 on the file of III Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru.

2. In terms of the award, the claim under Section 10 (1)(c) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'Act, 1947') is allowed in part. The Labour Court declared that the Management has taken resignation from the respondent- employee by force and the order relieving the respondent from service is set aside. Since the employee has attained the age of superannuation, reinstatement is not ordered.

3. The petitioner - Establishment is directed to pay full backwages from 30.08.2013 till the date of attaining the age of superannuation after deducting Rs.11,04,192/- paid to the employee on his resignation.

4. The impugned Order is assailed on two grounds:

(a) The respondent - employee was not a workman when he tendered resignation, as such, he could not have raised an industrial dispute.

(b) Assuming that he was a workman, still the Labour Court could have held that resignation is not voluntary. The respondent - employee did not establish that resignation is taken forcibly.

5. The petitioner’s claim is as under: Respondent joined the service under the petitioner as a workman on April,1988. The respondent was promoted to the position of an officer on 26.04.2004 and since then was working in managerial and supervisory capacity. On 25.06.2013, respondent voluntarily tendered resignation which is to take effect from 31.08.2023, and on 30.08.2013, respondent signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the petitioner - Establishment and received Rs.12,26,880/- towards full satisfaction of his claim.

6. The respondent-employee contended that resignation is not voluntary and he was forced to resign by petitioner - Establishment.

7. On 02.07.2014, the respondent raised the dispute. On 07.05.2015, the appropriate Government referred the dispute for adjudication. Both the parties led evidence in support of their contentions and the Labour Court held that the respondent is a workman and also held that resignation is not voluntary.

8. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner taking through the averments urged as under:

8.1 Respondent-employee cannot be termed as a workman. Though he joined services as an Operator, later he was promoted and became a certified trainer to conduct simulation workshop and he was a faculty member in the vocational centre.

8.2 Respondent had completed Post Graduate Diploma in Personnel Management and Industrial Relations in the year 2006 and of Master of Business Administration in the year 2008 and he also completed Post Graduate Diploma in Personnel Management Marketing in the year 2009 and Corporate Post Graduate Diploma in Business Administration from Symbiosis Centre in the year 2010 and Post Graduate Diploma in Financial Management in the year 2010. Considering the job profile of respondent it cannot be held that the respondent was a workman.

8.3 Because of his qualification, respondent - employee was promoted to Managerial and Superintending Staff Category (M&SS) and he accepted the service conditions. The Company went for restructuring and wanted to downsize its work force and offered to terminate the services of respondent - employee by paying compensation and the respondent voluntarily accepted the offer and submitted the resignation letter on 25.06.2013. Later, on 30.08.2023, the respondent entered into Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the petitioner- Establishment and received agreed compensation of Rs.12,26,880/- and the