Sunil Kumar vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala & Ors.

KIRTI SINGH, J. (Oral).

The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the impugned award dated 16.12.2014 (Annexure P-1), passed by Ld. Labour Court and for directing the respondents/management to reinstate the petitioner-workman in service with continuity and full back wages.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner joined the respondents No.2 to 4-Management as Lower Division Clerk on 26.07.2007 and continued in service till 14.11.2011, when his services were illegally terminated in violation of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The pe-titioner thereafter served a demand notice dated 19.03.2012 seeking rein-statement with continuity of service and full back wages, and upon failure of conciliation, the dispute was referred for adjudication. However, the claim of the petitioner was wrongly dismissed by the Labour Court. It is further sub-mitted that the resignation letter dated 17.05.2011 was not voluntary but was obtained from the petitioner under pressure and inducement, taking advan-tage of his financial difficulties. Be that as it may, the petitioner had with-drawn the alleged resignation vide letter dated 15.06.2011, prior to its accep-tance by the management on 30.08.2011. Therefore, the management could not have legally accepted the resignation after its withdrawal. It is further submitted that the management deliberately withheld the letter dated 15.06.2011 and did not produce the complete relevant record before the Labour Court, with the intention of defeating the claim of the petitioner. Ac-cordingly, the impugned award deserves to be quashed.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 4 submits that the petitioner was not illegally terminated but had voluntarily resigned on 17.05.2011 and was relieved on 30.08.2011 after completion of the prescribed notice period. Thereafter, on his own request, he was given a fresh ad-hoc appointment for 89 days on a consolidated salary of ₹7,000/-per month, which he left on 12.11.2011. It is submitted that the salary and provident fund dues of the petitioner were accordingly duly paid, including the final PF amount. It is further submitted that the alleged withdrawal of resignation dated 15.06.2011 was never proved to have been received by the management and is clearly an afterthought. Infact, even the subsequent letter of the petitioner dated 18.11.2011, alleging that the resignation was obtained forcibly, made no reference to the alleged withdrawal letter. The Labour Court, after appreciating the evidence, rightly rejected the petitioner’s claim, particularly in the absence of any proof of coercion or undue pressure. Accordingly, the impugned award calls for no interference and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

Heard learned counsel on either side and perused the judicial record with their able assistance.

The question which arises for consideration is whether the impugned Award dated 16.12.2014 passed by the learned Labour Court suffers from any illegality, perversity or error of law warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

A perusal of the impugned Award shows that the learned Labour Court, after considering the evidence on record, held that the petitioner had voluntarily submitted his resignation on 17.05.2011, which was accepted by the management on 30.08.2011 after completion of the applicable notice period, and that the plea of coercion, pressure or undue influence remained unsubstantiated. The alleged withdrawal of resignation dated 15.06.2011 was also not proved, there being no acknowledgment or other material showing its receipt by the management, while the subsequent letter dated 18.11.2011 made no reference to such withdrawal. The learned Labour Court further noticed that the petitioner had withdrawn his provident fund by mentioning resignation as the reason for leaving service and thereafter accepted a fresh ad-hoc appointment on a consolidated salary of ₹7,000/- per month from 03.09.2011 to 12.11.2011. In these circumstances, the Labour Court concluded that the petitioner had failed to prove that his services were illegally terminated or that his resignation was involuntary.

It is well settled that this Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India over awards of Labour Courts/Industrial Tribunals, does not sit in appeal over findings of fact, nor does it re-appreciate the evidence to test whether a different view was possible; interference is warranted only where a finding is shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner, despite his able assistance, has been unable to point out any such infirmity in the impugned Award. The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are based on a fair appreciation of the evidence on record and call for no interference.

In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

Civil miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, are also disposed of.