DEPPAK KUMAR BALI Vs. HMT LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant joined the services of the respondent in September 1978 as a Service mechanic and his terms of appointment entitled the respondent to transfer the appellant as an incidence of service. The appellant worked at various locations and was serving in the Delhi marketing and Service Office when on september 17, 1987 he was transferred to pinjore and was required to report for duty. The appellant was relieved from his service at Delhi on September 30, 1987. The appellant, however, did not join at Pinjore. It is the case of the respondent that the appellant refused to accept the transfer order and submitted representations dated October 2, 1987 and october 21, 1987 against the transfer. The representation dated October 2, 1987 is by way of telegram while the second one dated October 21, 1987 is in the form of a letter and read as under:

(2.) THE appellant stated that he did not join duties for personal reasons while the stand of the respondent Management was that the transfer to Pinjore was a consequence of the appellant himself wanting duty at a place where frequent journeys were not required to be done by the appellant. The appellant was served with letters dated October 14, 1987 and November 11, 1987 to report for duty at Pinjore as per specified dates but to no avail. This resulted in charge sheets being issued to the appellant dated December 29, 1987 and January 5, 1988. Departmental inquiries were initiated thereafter and on inquiry it was found that the charge of unauthorized absence from duty and disobedience was proved against the appellant. The appellant, possibly apprehending an action, tendered his resignation on April 4, 1988. This resignation was accepted vide letter dated May 10, 1988. The appellant accepted the same and vide legal notice dated July 9, 1988 sought settlement of his dues on account of his resignation. The dues of the appellant were settled and the details informed vide letter dated november 15, 1988. The resignation thus induced the respondent to drop the disciplinary proceedings.

(3.) THE appellant seems to have had a second thought when on February 21, 1989 a complaint was made by him to the Conciliation officer stating that the resignation letter was not voluntary but was on account of compulsion and pressure put on him by his superior Shri J. P. Saxena.