AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Since the issue in all the writ petitions is one and the same, these matters are heard together and disposed of by this common order.
For convenience, the facts as narrated in W.P.No.22540 of 2017 are referred to in this order.
The brief facts are as under leading to filing of present writ petitions are as under:
3.1. The 2nd respondent joined as Salesman in the petitioner mall on 30.03.2008 and worked continuously to the utmost satisfaction of the petitioner and used to work 12 hours from 11.00 a.m to 11.00 p.m., but the petitioner did not pay the overtime wages. The petitioner engaged more than 70 employees in his shop. 2nd respondent and others requested the petitioner to implement the labour laws and pay the wages. But, the petitioner did not follow the labour laws including covering the employee under PF & ESI and that the employee was never paid minimum wages as prescribed by the Government.
3.2. The petitioner bore grudge against them and started harassing them and wanted to eliminate the 2nd respondent and others on one pretext or the other. The petitioner called the 2nd respondent and others on 06.04.2013 and forcibly obtained their signatures on blank papers and handed over them letters to them showing that they were relieved from 04.04.2013 along with the cheques towards full and final settlement. 2nd respondent further contended that he never resigned from the job and when he and others demanded for implementation of minimum wages and payment of ESI and PF, the petitioner created documents as if the 2nd respondent tendered resignation. The petitioner failed to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act and the provisions of Section 48 of the A.P. Shops and Establishment Act.
3.3. Aggrieved by the termination, the 2nd respondent filed I.D.No.98 of 2013 before the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad.
The petitioner herein filed counter denying the averments of the petition and contended that petition filed by the 2nd respondent under Section 2-A(2) of the I.D.Act is not maintainable. If the 2nd respondent has any grievance with regard to non-implementation of labour laws, he ought to have made complaint before the appropriate authority, i.e., Labour Department for implementation of various provisions of labour laws, such as, minimum wages act, over time wages, maintaining of attendance register, etc. Petitioner denied that the 2nd respondent and other were called by him on 06.04.2013 and obtained their signatures on papers, but he admitted the relation between the parties.
4.1. Petitioner contended that due to personal reasons, 2nd respondent submitted resignation letter dated 21.03.2013 requesting the petitioner to accept the same and accordingly, petitioner accepted the same and relieved the 2nd respondent on 04.04.2013. It is further contended that on 06.04.2013, 2nd respondent came to their office and received relieving letter along with cheque towards full and final settlement of his dues pertaining to his employment and encashed the cheque amount.
4.2. Petitioner further contended that 2nd respondent filed case under A.P. Shops and Establishment Act vide S.C.No.6 of 2013 before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour and the same was withdrawn. It is also contended that once a case has been filed and same was withdrawn without taking the permission from the Court to file fresh case subsequent filing of case, amounts to res judicata. That out of six employees, two employees, by name, Md.Khasim and Md.Zaheer have again rejoined the service in the petitioner establishment and are continuing.
On due consideration of the evidence and material placed on record, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, passed an award directing the petitioner to pay Rs.2,00,000/- to the 2nd respondent in lieu of reinstatement within 30 days from the date of publication of the award. If the petitioner failed to deposit the same within the stipulated time, the 2nd respondent is at liberty to claim interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of award till realization.
Aggrieved by the order dated 23.02.2017 of the Labour Court, the petitioners herein filed the present writ petitions.
Heard Sri P.Venu Gopal, learned senior counsel representing Sri F.Rafeeq Ahmed for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Labour and Sri S.Prabhakar Reddy for the 2nd respondent.
Learned senior counsel submitted that having submitted the resignation letter and having received the cheque and encashed the same, the 2nd respondent filed I.D. without any basis. The Labour Court erred in passing the award granting compensation to the 2nd respondent without there being any evidence on the aspect of coercion.
8.1. Learned senior counsel for petitioner further submitted that 2nd respondent on his own volition resigned on 21.03.2003 and after tendering his resignation, he filed I.D.No.98 of 2013 and has not chosen to follow the law contained in Section 2-A of the I.D.Act. The 3rd respondent entertained the I.D., filed by the 2nd respondent and passed the impugned award without any justification. He further submitted that the order of Labour Court is erroneous, contrary to law and liable to be set aside. The Labour Court ought to have seen that 2nd respondent could not prove that alleged force or coercion exercised for his resignation. The Labour Court ought to have seen the evidence let in on behalf of the petitioner to show that 2nd respondent’s resignation was voluntary. The decisions relied upon by the Labour Court are not applicable to the facts of the case.
8.2. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the compensation amount awarded by the Labour Court is contrary to law and does not stand the test of reasonableness or law. He submitted that the 2nd respondent is gainfully employed elsewhere. The petitioner is only a retail store dealing in footwear petty business and if the amounts ordered to be paid by the petitioner are paid, the income of the petitioner for almost a couple of years would be at jeopardy. There is no rationale and no basis for awarding huge compensation by the Labour Court. It is further contended that absolutely there is no explanation and no reasons have been recorded for awarding the said amount. Further, no details have been given as to how the Labour Court quantified the compensation amount and awarding Rs.2,00,000/- and finally, prayed for setting aside the impugned orders.
Learned counsel for 2nd respondent Sri S.Prabhakar Reddy submitted that on due consideration of the evidence and material placed on record, the Labour Court had rightly passed the awards directing the petitioner to pay compensation amount to the 2nd respondent and therefore, there is no need to interfere with the awards passed by the Labour Court and prayed to dismiss the writ petitions. The learned counsel extensively referred to observations of Labour Court and also cross-examination of MW.1 and MW.3 to support his contention that the Labour Court justified in allowing the I.D., and awarding compensation.
The learned counsel for 2nd respondent further submitted that petitioner did not implement the minimum wages and EPF & ESI was not paid and when the 2nd respondent questioned the same, the petitioner bore grudge against 2nd respondent. The learned counsel for 2nd respondent contended that the petitioner had not paid any amount towards EPF and also not made any ESI contribution. It is bounden duty of the petitioner to prove that it had followed the labour laws and paid ESP, EPF and minimum wages and the petitioner did not file any document to show that it paid EPF regularly and ESI benefits.
The point for consideration is whether the compensation amount awarded by the Labour Court is just and proper ?
Consideration:
The main contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that the Labour Court had not recorded the reasons for awarding the huge compensation, which is contrary to law and therefore, the matters are liable to be remanded back to Tribunal for reconsideration.
It is pertinent to refer to the observations of Labour Court before examining the contentions raised by the petitioner.
13.1. The Labour Court observed that Ex.W1 i.e., relieving letter, dated 04.04.2013, wherein it was mentioned that the Management has received the resignation letter (Ex.W2), dated 20.03.2013 from the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent was relieved from service w.e.f. 04.04.2013. On perusal of Ex.W2-resignation letter dated 20.03.2013, it is interesting to note that 2nd respondent put signature with date 06.04.2013. Therefore, it has to be presumed that the 2nd respondent had submitted his resignation on 06.04.2013, that means prior to submitting the resignation letter, the relieving letter was prepared.
13.2. The Labour Court also observed that petitioner in I.D.No.99 of 2013 was examined as Management Witness No.3. The Labour Court on due consideration and analysis of the material and evidence at page Nos.6 and 7 of the award has observed as under:-
“…….that the respondent under threat and coercion obtained the signature of the petitioner on 06-04-2023 and created the documents suitably with a period date and examination of MW-3 clearly shows that the management also obtained his signature and after filing ID.99/13 the management by using illegal methods attracted MW-3 in their favour and examined before the court as MW-3. It clearly shows that the respondent not only obtained signatures of the petitioner under threat and coercion they also wanted to use MW-3 as a tool to defeat the claim of the petitioner. These vindictive tactics used by the respondent clearly shows that they wanted to show their supremacy as a employer which cannot be encouraged. The manner and mode of obtaining signatures of the petitioner and converting the petitioner in ID.99/13 as a approver to safeguard the interest of the respondent clearly shows that even this court order of reinstatement of petitioner respondent will not allow the petitioner to do their job peacefully.”
On evaluation of evidence and material placed on record, as analyzed above, as mentioned above, the Labour Court has come to a conclusion that petitioner has obtained the signatures of 2nd respondent and others on blank papers on 06.04.2013 under threat, coercion and later filled up the blank papers for their convenience showing as if 2nd respondent has voluntarily tendered resignation, for which they settled the amount. The Labour Court further held that the manner and mode of obtaining signatures of the 2nd respondent and converting the petitioner in I.D.No.99 of 2013 as a approver to safeguard the interest of the petitioner shows the conduct and tactics adopted by the petitioner.
The Labour Court had referred to following decisions:
i) Umrala Gram panchayat vs. Secretary, Municipal Employees and others 2015 (4) Scale 334;
ii) Bhuneshwar Kumar Trivedi vs. Hindalgo Industries Limited AIR 2014 SC 2258;
iii) Makinon Mackenzil and Company Limited vs. Mackinon Employees Union AIR 2015 SC 1373;
iv) Delhi International Airport Private Limited vs. Union of India and others (2011) 12 SCC 449
On due consideration of the above decisions, the Labour Court came to conclusion that even if the Court ordered for reinstatement of the 2nd respondent, petitioner would not allow the 2nd respondent to do his job peacefully. The above observation of the Labour Court is perhaps based on the conduct and methods adopted by the petitioner in manipulating the documents and also the strained relationship between the petitioner and 2nd respondent is not cordial.
The Labour Court had also considered the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd., (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court had awarded Rs.5,00,000/- to each worker towards full and final settlement of the claim of the workers therein. Thus, the Labour Court relied upon above judgments and awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to be paid to the 2nd respondent by the petitioner. Though, Labour Court did not elaborate the basis for quantification of such amount. It is relevant to note that petitioner has not contributed any amount towards EPF and ESI etc., in respect of 2nd respondent. Further, Labour Court specifically observed that relation between the petitioner and the respondent no.2 were strained and even if the Court ordered for reinstatement of 2nd respondent, petitioner shall not allow the 2nd respondent to do his job peacefully. Respondent no.2 raised specific contention that resignation letter and other documents are manipulated.
As per the application filed by the 2nd respondent along with other employees under Section 20(2) of Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the Authority under Minimum Wages Act-cum-Joint Commissioner of Labour at Hyderabad, a salary of Rs.5,250/- was being paid to 2nd respondent, which comes to Rs.63,000/- per annum. According to the 2nd respondent, as per G.O.Ms.No.116 dated 07.12.2007, the minimum wage payable was Rs.7,029/-, which comes to Rs.84,348/- per annum. Respondent no.2 is aged about 37 years as on the date of filing of I.D. If the retirement age is considered as 58 years, the 2nd respondent has more than 20 years of service. The compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is equal to about 38 months salary being paid by the petitioner. Considering the age of the 2nd respondent and if he had continued in service, he would have got salary for more than 20 years, therefore, the compensation amount of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded by the Labour Court is very reasonable.
Therefore, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, in considered view of this Court, the Labour Court is justified in awarding compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement of 2nd respondent.
Conclusion:
On considering the facts, peculiar facts of this case, this Court do not find any reason to interfere with the compensation amount awarded by the Labour Court. Thus, all the Writ Petitions fail and accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.