Judgment affirmed that voluntary resignation negates claims of illegal termination, underpinned by lacking proof of duress.

COMMON ORDER

WP No.27959 of 2019 is filed challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 22.11.2018, passed in I.D.No.85 of 2014.

WP No.33714 of 2023 is filed to call for the records in I.D.No.85 of 2014 passed by the Principal District Labour Court, Coimbatore dated 22.11.2018 and quash the same and direct the Respondent Management to provide the terminal benefits of Rs.17,15,215.51/- to the petitioner, as he attained superannuation.

2. Since both the writ petitions are filed challenging the same award, the writ petitions are disposed of by this Common order.

3. The petitioner in WP No.27959 of 2019 will be referred to as the petitioner and the respondent in the said writ petition will be referred to as the respondent. Whereas the petitioner has assailed the award in so far as it grants compensation, the respondent has questioned the award to the extent it denies reinstatement with monetary benefits.

4. The brief facts leading to the writ petitions are as follows:

The petitioner is a company engaged in manufacture of special type of pumps called Aqua Pumps. The respondent was employed as a driver in the petitioner company. On 08.08.2014, the petitioner received a complaint against the respondent regarding the theft of 10 liters of diesel from the company's vehicle. On receipt of the complaint, the officials of the petitioner enquired the respondent on the same evening. The respondent in the said enquiry admitted the theft, sought pardon, and also voluntarily submitted his resignation. The petitioner accepted the resignation and settled the terminal benefits of the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent caused legal notice to the petitioner on 22.08.2014, seeking reinstatement and in the alternative sought compensation of Rs.5 lakhs. The petitioner sent a detailed reply on 08.09.2014. The respondent thereafter raised a dispute which was referred by the Government, for adjudication and taken on file by the Principal Labour Court, Coimbatore, in I.D.No. 85 of 2014. The Labour Court on the basis of the evidence, both oral and documentary filed by the petitioner as well as the respondent, passed the impugned award directing the petitioner to pay compensation of Rs.3 lakhs, to the respondent, along with 6% interest per annum, in lieu of reinstatement. Aggrieved by the impugned award, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition for the aforesaid relief.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the award of the Labour Court was vitiated by material errors apparent on the face of the record. The learned counsel, submitted that the Labour Court failed to note that the respondent had voluntarily submitted his resignation under Ex.M6, on 08.08.2014, with a view to avoid disciplinary and criminal proceedings. The learned counsel further submitted that the Labour Court failed to note that the respondent failed to discharge the burden cast on him of proving that Ex.M6 and Ex.M7 letters, were obtained from him under duress and coercion. The learned counsel further submitted that the Labour Court erred in its finding that the petitioner failed to prove the settlement of terminal benefits to the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner in reply to the respondent's writ petition in WP No.33714 of 2023, submitted that it deserved to be dismissed in-limini on the short ground of delay and laches. The learned counsel submitted that the Labour Court failed to appreciate the evidence filed by the petitioner in proper perspective and therefore, the award of the Labour Court deserved to be set aside.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the Labour Court rendered its factual findings on prope