Smt. Reena vs Nanda Brothers P. Ltd.

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.—The petition impugns the award dated 17th March, 2008 of the Industrial Adjudicator on the following reference:

Whether the services of Smt. Reena have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief is she entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?

and holding that the Petitioner workman had herself resigned from employment of the Respondent employer and is thus not entitled to any relief.

Notice to show cause of the petition was issued on 22nd July, 2008. Since then the matter is being adjourned either for the reason of the Petitioner having not taken any steps for service of the Respondent employer or for the reason of the process sent to the Respondent employer at the address given by the Petitioner workman being returned with the endorsement that No. such firm exists at the said address. The counsel for the Petitioner workman has now filed CM No. 6651/2011 for service of the Respondent employer by substituted means. However since the matter is still at show cause stage, it has been deemed expedient to hear the counsel for the Petitioner workman on whether the award calls for any interference in exercise of power of judicial review.

The Respondent employer contested the claim of the Petitioner before the Industrial Adjudicator pleading closure with effect form 1st January, 2002 and also pleading that the Petitioner herself, after remaining on maternity leave, had expressed inability to continue in employment and had tendered her resignation on 14th August, 1993.

The Petitioner of course in her rejoinder before the Industrial Adjudicator denied any resignation.

The Industrial Adjudicator has found that the Respondent employer had proved the resignation letter of the Petitioner as Ext. WW1/M1 and on which the Petitioner admitted her signature. It was further found that the Petitioner did not explain the circumstances in which her admitted signatures existed on the said resignation letter. The Industrial Adjudicator, in the face of the said admission and circumstantial evidence of the Petitioner workman prior thereto being on maternity leave believed the version of the Respondent employer of the Petitioner having herself resigned from employment.

The counsel for the Petitioner has today upon being asked as to how the signatures existed on the resignation letter, contended that the said signatures were obtained at the time of joining employment only. He is however unable to show that any such plea was taken before the Industrial Adjudicator. If that had been the case of the Petitioner, the Petitioner ought to have in the rejoinder taken the said stand and/or during her cross-examination/evidence explained the signature. The explanation rendered before this Court orally cannot make this Court review the award against which No. appeal has been provided.

Even otherwise, the finding as aforesaid is a finding of fact and is found to be a plausible view on the basis of the material/evidence before the Industrial Adjudicator and it cannot be said that the award is perverse or that the said factual finding is based on No. evidence whatsoever.

There is thus No. merit in the petition; the same is dismissed. No. order as to costs.