Shri Rameshwar Verma vs The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal No. 1 and Another

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.—The petitioner workman by this writ petition impugns the award dated 10th November, 1997 on the following reference:

Whether Shri Rameshwar Verma has abandoned his services on his own or the same have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?

The petitioner workman in his cross examination before the Industrial Tribunal admitted his writing and signatures on a voucher, inter alia to the effect that he had settled his accounts with the respondent No. 2 employer and that no balance was due from the respondent No. 2 employer to the petitioner workman. The pleading earlier of the petitioner workman was that he had been made to sign on some blank vouchers but had not written anything in his own hand. However, this plea of his was proved false as he admitted as aforesaid his writing on the voucher. The petitioner workman then contended that he had written on the voucher under duress. The Industrial Tribunal did not accept the said version of the petitioner workman and accordingly answered the reference against the petitioner workman and held the petitioner workman to be not entitled to any relief.

Aggrieved therefrom this writ petition was preferred. The respondent No. 2 employer contested the writ petition by filing a counter affidavit. Rule was issued on 18th October, 2000. The counsel for the respondent No. 2 employer however stopped appearing after 15th December, 2006 and is proceeded against ex parte and the counsel for the petitioner workman has been heard.

The finding of the Industrial Tribunal of the petitioner workman having signed the voucher in full and final settlement of his account and thus having left the employment of the respondent No. 2 employer on his own is a finding of fact. Similarly, the finding that the said writing and signature on the voucher was not under duress is also a finding of fact. This Court in the exercise of writ jurisdiction would not interfere in such findings of fact unless the same are shown to be based on no evidence or inadmissible evidence or are shown to be so perverse which no reasonable person could have reached on the basis of the material on record.

Upon the same being put to the counsel for the petitioner workman, he draws attention to a complaint stated to have been lodged by the petitioner workman with the police within two days of the date of the aforesaid voucher. It is urged that the said evidence has not been considered by the Tribunal and which is demonstrative of the petitioner workman having signed the voucher aforesaid under duress. The counsel for the petitioner workman was asked to show that the petitioner workman before the Labour Court had proved the said complaint to the police. Though, the counsel for the petitioner workman has drawn attention to the affidavit by way of examination in chief filed by the petitioner workman before the Industrial Tribunal, but no mention is found therein of the said police complaint. It thus appears that the plea sought to be raised before this Court was not raised before the Industrial Tribunal.

The counsel for the petitioner workman has further urged that the petitioner workman within a few days of the date of the aforesaid voucher also got sent a demand notice to the respondent No. 2 employer through the union. It is contended that all this shows that the petitioner workman had not voluntarily left the employment of the respondent No. 2 employer. Reliance in this regard is also placed on G. T. Lad and Others Vs. Chemical and Fibres of India Ltd., which inter alia dealt with the question as to what is abandonment from service. However, in the present case it is not in dispute that if the petitioner workman has of his own written and signed the voucher aforesaid, it does tantamount to his having left or resigned from the employment. The only question is whether the version of the petitioner workman of having written and signed the voucher under duress has been wrongly disbelieved by the Industrial Tribunal. The petitioner workman first contended before the Industrial Tribunal that his signatures had been taken on some blank vouchers and he had not written anything thereon. However, subsequently, in cross examination the petitioner workman was forced to admit his writing on the voucher also. The petitioner workman then sought to contend that his signatures were taken under duress. The view taken by the Industrial Tribunal is a possible view and this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction would not interfere specially when no provision for appeal has been made against the award of the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal. Even otherwise, I am of the opinion that for a case of duress/coercion to have been made out, it is necessary to prove the circumstances in which the person succumbed to duress/coercion. No such case is made out in the present case.

The respondent No. 2 employer, though ex parte, has in its counter affidavit inter alia pleaded that the petitioner workman has in the writ petition taken new pleas which were not taken before the Industrial Tribunal and the petitioner workman after having left employment of his own has initiated the proceedings through union to harass and blackmail the respondent No. 2 employer.

There is no merit in the writ petition. The same is dismissed. No order as to costs.