AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This petition is filed seeking review of the order dated 16.02.2026 in W.P. No.3962/2024.
In terms of the order under review this Court had allowed the W.P. No.3962/2024 and has set-aside the award dated 23.09.2023 filed by the III Additional Labour Court in Bengaluru in Reference No.24/2015. Consequently, the Reference No.24/2015 was rejected.
Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent no.1 in the said writ petition is before this Court seeking a review of the order.
The Court has heard the party in person as well as the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent.
The petitioner was the former employer of respondent No.1/Establishment. Petitioner's resignation from employment led to the aforementioned industrial dispute. The Labour Court, in terms of its award dated 23.09.2023, in Reference No. 24/2015, had allowed the claim of the present petitioner in part and directed backwages from 30.08.2013 till the date of attaining superannuation after deducting the amount of Rs.11,04,192/-.
The said order was assailed by the employer in the aforementioned Writ Petition and same was allowed as noted above.
The Court while allowing the aforementioned writ petition has taken a view that the employee had tendered his resignation with effect from 31.08.2013. However, the resignation letter is dated 25.06.2013 and from 25.06.2013 till 31.08.2013 the employee worked and thereafter, petitioner has received certain compensation.
The Court while allowing the Writ Petition had perused the contents of the letter and has come to the conclusion that there is no reason to take a view that the resignation is on account of coercion or force as alleged by the employee.
The Court has also noticed that from 25.06.2013 till 30.08.2018 the employee who had the opportunity to withdraw the resignation has not withdrawn the resignation and on 30.08.2018 while exiting from the Company petitioner has entered into a memorandum of understanding with the Company.
From paragraph No.28 onwards the Court has considered how the Labour Court has misconstrued the evidence to come to the conclusion that the resignation letter dated 25.06.2013 as obtained under coercion and force.
The Court has also taken note of the answer in the cross examination of M.W.1 which weighed in the mind of the Labour Court to accept the plea of the employee.
The Court has also taken note of the fact that the petitioner has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding signed on 30.08.2013 and accepted the severance package.
The Court has also held that after having signed the Memorandum of Understanding and having received the compensation, it is for the petitioner to discharge the burden that he was forced to resign and sign the Memorandum of Understanding and said burden is not discharged.
The Court has also produced the grounds urged in the review petition. The petitioner in substance has reiterated the grounds which petitioner has urged while addressing the argument in the Writ Petition.
The Court is of the view that the contentions raised in the review petition do not fall within the scope of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There are no apparent errors in the impugned order to seek a review.
Assuming that the contentions raised by the petitioner are also plausible contentions and an alternative view is also plausible, same cannot be a ground for review. Hence, the Petition is dismissed.
Since the petitioner is party-in-person, the Court would deem it appropriate to clarify that this order rejecting the review petition will not come in the way of the petitioner challenging the order in the Writ Petition in the manner prescribed in law.