LAWS(INDC)-1998-7-2

PENNWALT INDIA LIMITED Vs. SHREEDHAR DHONDU PARKAR

Decided On July 22, 1998
PENNWALT INDIA LIMITED Appellant
V/S
Shreedhar Dhondu Parkar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Original Respondent Company in Complaint (ULP) No. 138 of 1990 has preferred this Revision Application under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 against the order dated 22nd February 1996 passed by the learned Judge of First Labour Court, Thane in above referred complaint. The facts in short, of this Revision Application can be stated as follows: - -

(2.) IT is further pleaded that on 1st April 1990, Shri Jape made the Complainant to sit for about two hours in front of him and insisted to resign immediately. The Complainant refused to the same. On 2nd and 3rd April 1990, the Complainant was taken by Shri Jape to Shri Kashyap. Shri Kashyap told Shri Jape to take the resignation of the Complainant and if he does not give resignation, he should be handed over to the police. Any amount required for that purpose may be spent. Shri Jape thereafter repeatedly advised the Complainant that it was not possible for him to fight with the company. The Complainant was under tremendous psychological pressure and under tension. On 4th April 1990, Shri Jape again took the Complainant to Shri Kashyap. Shri Kashyap told the Complainant that if he thinks more, he will be repent for the same. Shri Jape was asked to take resignation from the Complainant immediately. Shri Jape kept a paper before the Complainant and dictated him to write a desire by him. The Complainant was completely demoralised. He could not resist the pressure for the fear of action by police on account of illegal things done by him at the instance of the company. The Complainant, therefore, wrote resignation in Marathi. Shri Jape asked him to put the date 2nd April 1990 though the resignation was in fact written and signed by him on 4th April 1990. The resignation is contrary to the provisions of the Standing Orders and the contract of employment. It is ab -initio void and not even out of his volition. It was forcibly obtained. The Complainant thereafter contacted his friend who advised him that he should immediately tender letter withdrawing the said resignation. The Complainant on 7th April 1990 gave an application withdrawing the said resignation. The letter was handed over to Shri Jape. He took the same to Shri Kashyap. After some time, Shri Jape came and served the Complainant with letter dated 7th April 1990 stating that his resignation has been accepted with immediate effect. The Complainant learnt that the letter withdrawing the resignation was destroyed by Shri Kashyap. The letter of acceptance of resignation dated 7th April 1990 was signed by Shri Vichare who was Manager -Operation. He has no power in law as well as in fact to issue such letter. The Complainant was advised by his friend not to antagonise the company and to pay for a job. The Complainant wrote two letters i.e. dated 16th April 1990 and 2nd May 1990 praying that he should be given his job back. He had mentioned in the letter that the alleged personal difficulty mentioned in the said resignation letter was over. The Respondent did not reply to those letters. The Respondent's action of removal of the Complainant from service is in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Complainant was neither given any notice nor the wages in lieu of notice. He has also not been paid retrenchment Compensation etc. The termination of his service was not in good faith but by way of colour able exercise of the employer's right and it was for patently false reasons. The action has been taken with undue haste and by way of victimisation for his union activities. The Complainant had prayed for declaration that he had not resigned willingly and the action of acceptance of the said resignation is illegal and unfair labour practice. He had also prayed for direction to the Respondent to reinstate him in service and to pay full back wages from the date of termination till he is reinstated.

(3.) IT is further pleaded that internal Auditors in the course of the routine audit noticed certain irregularities committed by the Complainant. There were alterations and overwriting to inflate the figure. The Complainant claimed more money on the basis of the vouchers and pocketed the same. The claims made by the Complainant were neither genuine nor bona fide. The Complainant was confronted by Shri Jape with such bills and vouchers. The Complainant had become panicky. In the course of discussion, the Complainant apprehended institution of the departmental enquiry and the criminal prosecution. The Complainant asked for the Co -operation from Shri Jape to quit the service without any stigma or prosecution. He offered to resign. Accordingly, he submitted his resignation dated 2nd April 1990. He claimed that on account of some domestic problem, he had tendered the resignation. He requested to relieve him early. The letter was sent to Shri Vichare Operation Manager with the recommendation. The same was accepted and it was communicated to the Complainant on 7th April 1990 at about 1.00 p.m. The Complainant was relieved of his duty after working hours of 7th April 1990. The Complainant has misused generosity shown to him and has made allegations by way of an afterthought. The Complainant was advised to collect the legal dues but he did not go to the Accounts Department and also not collected the dues. By letter dated 21st April 1990, he was again advised to collect dues. He did not respond to that letter. The Complainant's letter dated 16th April 1990 was received. He had prayed for reemployment. He never made grievances that his resignation was submitted because of coercion. The letter was replied by reply dated 31st July 1990. The vacant post has been filled in by appointing one Shri Salunkhe. The Complainant had made a representation to the Minister of State for Labour. The Labour Officer investigated the matter on 24th July 1990.