K K CHAKRABORTY Vs. ALANKIT ASSIGNMENTS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM APPLN. NO. 41296/2017 (Delay)

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts which are relevant for the disposal of this appeal as per the appellant are that in the year 1999, the appellant/ K. K. Chakraborty was appointed by the respondent company/ Alankit Assignments Ltd, at a monthly salary of Rs. 3,500/- along with Rs. 1000/- as conveyance charge. The appellant was promoted on regular basis with an increment in the salary. He alleged that he was assigned the work of depositing electricity bills, telephone bills and other miscellaneous bank work. It is the case of the appellant that the management of the respondent company stopped paying him salary w.e.f. January, 2013 and despite which he continued to work in the respondent company till 26.07.2013. He approached the management of the company on several occasions for payment of the amounts due but the same was denied to him on one ground or the other. On 26.7.2013, he was forced to render his resignation under force and detention by the Managing Director and staff of the respondent company. The appellant served a Demand Notice dated 18.09.2013 to the respondent company which remained unanswered. Thereafter, appellant initiated conciliation proceedings against the respondent company which was further referred to the Labour Court for adjudication of the Industrial Dispute. Vide order dated 28.11.2017, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi dismissed the claim of the appellant. Aggrieved by the said decision, the appellant preferred a writ petition, which was dismissed vide order dated 18.09.2017 by the learned Single Judge.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has strenuously contended before us that the basis of the impugned order dated 18.09.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge was, on the face of it, erroneous and unjustified. She has further contended that the appellant had never tendered his resignation voluntarily rather he was forced to write his resignation under threat, coercion and duress; that the services of the appellant was illegally terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947; that the evidence relied upon by the learned Single Judge is inadmissible in law. In order to substantiate her case, the counsel relied upon judgements in the case of Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, (2010) 3 SCC 192, Prakash Rattan Lal v. Mankey Ram in C.M.(Main) No. 976/2007, Harihar Prasad Singh & Ors. v. Balmiki Prasad Singh, 1987 2 SCC 555, G. T. LAD & Ors. v. Chemicals & Fibres of India Ltd., (1979) 1 SCC 590 and Syed Yakoob v. K. S. Radhakrishnan & Ors., (1964) AIR SC 477. Hence, it is prayed that the order dated 18.09.2017 passed by the Single Judge and the Award dated 28.01.2017 are liable to set aside.