Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Nanded District Central Cooperative Bank Limited, challenged the judgment of the Labour Court dated 26.5.2014 in Complaint (ULP) No. 72 of 2011, which partly allowed the respondent's complaint alleging forced resignation amounting to termination. The petitioner also challenged the Industrial Court's judgment dated 3.2.2015 dismissing Revision (ULP) No. 50 of 2014. The respondent, Kondiba Nilkanthrao Jadhav, an ex-employee, claimed that his resignation letter dated 19.12.2005 was obtained under force, duress, or coercion. The Labour Court held that the resignation was not voluntary and that the acceptance without notice period violated the Standing Orders. The Industrial Court dismissed the revision, affirming the Labour Court's findings. The High Court considered two issues: whether the resignation was obtained under duress, and whether the petitioner could be faulted for accepting the resignation within one month. The High Court noted that the petitioner had consented to condonation of delay before the Lok-Adalat, which was suppressed in the petition. The Court also observed that the Governing Body accepted resignations of nine persons in one resolution, indicating a predetermined plan to remove them. The High Court held that the Labour Court's findings were based on evidence and the Industrial Court correctly refused to re-appreciate evidence. The petition was dismissed, and the judgments of the Labour Court and Industrial Court were upheld.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Forced Resignation - Termination - Resignation letter obtained under force, duress or coercion amounts to termination - The Labour Court found that the resignation was obtained under duress and the acceptance without notice period violated Standing Orders - Held that the resignation was not voluntary and the termination was illegal (Paras 5-10). B) Industrial Law - Condonation of Delay - Consent - Condonation of delay by consent before Lok-Adalat is binding and cannot be challenged in writ petition - The petitioner consented to condonation of delay of about 5 years, which was suppressed in the petition - Held that the petitioner cannot now challenge the delay (Para 6). C) Industrial Law - Revision - Scope - The Industrial Court in revision cannot re-appreciate evidence and substitute its own findings - The Industrial Court dismissed the revision, affirming the Labour Court's findings - Held that the revision was rightly dismissed (Para 10).
Issue of Consideration
(i) Whether the resignation letter dated 19.12.2005 tendered by the respondent praying for being relieved on 6.1.2006, can be said to be obtained by the petitioner under force, duress or coercion? (ii) Whether the petitioner can be faulted for having accepted the resignation tendered by the respondent within a period of one month from the date of resignation?
Final Decision
Writ Petition dismissed. Judgments of Labour Court and Industrial Court upheld.
Law Points
- Forced resignation amounts to termination
- Resignation obtained under duress is void
- Standing Orders require notice period
- Condonation of delay by consent is binding
- Revision Court cannot re-appreciate evidence
