Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, M/s. S.K.International (a partnership firm) and its partner Chirag Kenia, challenged an Award dated 12 July 2022 passed by the Labour Court at Mumbai in Reference (IDA) No.32 of 2020. The Labour Court had answered the Reference in favor of the respondent-employee, Ashok Tanaji Tambe, directing his reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages from 24 April 2019. The respondent was employed as an Engineer – Technical Support by the petitioner firm under an appointment letter dated 6 May 2014 and was deputed to the site of Barclays Bank. On 16 April 2019, the respondent was called back from the client's site due to alleged moral misconduct and was asked to sit in the petitioners' office until the next assignment. The petitioners issued a relieving order dated 24 April 2019, terminating the respondent's services with effect from 23 April 2019, asserting that the respondent was relieved at his own instance. The respondent alleged unfair labour practice and victimization, leading to an industrial dispute. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour made a Reference under Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Labour Court. The Labour Court, after recording evidence, held the termination illegal and awarded reinstatement with full back wages. The High Court examined the evidence, including the relieving letter which stated that the respondent was relieved at his own request. The respondent did not challenge the letter or prove coercion. The employer's witness, Ms. Shraddha Helinge, testified that the respondent voluntarily resigned. The High Court found that the Labour Court erred in shifting the burden of proof to the employer and in concluding that the termination was illegal. The court held that the termination was a voluntary resignation and not an illegal termination. Consequently, the petition was allowed, the Labour Court's award was quashed, and the respondent was not entitled to reinstatement or back wages.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Voluntary Resignation - Termination of Service - Relieving Letter - The court considered whether the employee's termination was a voluntary resignation or a forced termination. The employer issued a relieving letter stating the employee was relieved at his own request. The employee did not challenge the letter or prove coercion. Held that the termination was a voluntary resignation and not an illegal termination. (Paras 10-15) B) Industrial Law - Burden of Proof - Unfair Labour Practice - The burden to prove unfair labour practice lies on the employee. The employee failed to produce evidence of coercion or that the relieving letter was obtained under duress. The employer's witness testified that the employee voluntarily resigned. Held that the Labour Court erred in shifting the burden to the employer. (Paras 16-20) C) Industrial Law - Reinstatement - Full Back Wages - The Labour Court's award of reinstatement with full back wages was set aside as the termination was not illegal. The employee had voluntarily resigned and was not entitled to reinstatement or back wages. Held that the petition was allowed and the award quashed. (Paras 21-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of the respondent-employee by the petitioners-employer was illegal and amounted to unfair labour practice, and whether the Labour Court was justified in directing reinstatement with full back wages.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the Labour Court Award dated 12 July 2022, and held that the termination of the respondent was a voluntary resignation and not illegal. The respondent was not entitled to reinstatement or back wages.
Law Points
- Voluntary resignation
- Relieving letter
- Termination of service
- Unfair labour practice
- Burden of proof
- Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Section 12(5)
- Section 2(oo)
- Section 25F
