JAGRAN LIMITED Vs. LABOUR COURT II UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) This writ petition filed by the employer is directed against award dated 26.7.1999 given by Presiding Officer labour Court II U.P. Meerut in adjudication case No. 68 of 1997. The matter which was referred to the labour Court was as to whether the action of the Petitioner employer terminating the services of its employee Respondent No. 3 Smt. Savita Goyal w.e.f. 1.7.1996 was just and valid or not. The case of the Respondent No. 3 was that she was forced to resign on 1.7.1996 hence it amounted to retrenchment and retrenchment was bad as no compensation was paid to her as required by Section 6-N of U.P. Industrial Dispute Act and that no inquiry was held against her. The further case of the Respondent No. 3 was that on the very next day i.e. 2.7.1996 she gave a protest letter withdrawing the resignation. The Petitioner employer contended that the resignation was given by Respondent No. 3 on 19.6.1996 which was accepted on the same date hence she ceased to be the employee of the Petitioner w.e.f. 19.6.1996 and there was absolutely no question of termination of services on 1.7.1996. Respondent No. 3 according to the Petitioner was employed on 23.12.1993. Regarding date of employment the case of Respondent No. 3 was that she was employed on 27.12.1988.

(3.) Labour Court held that Respondent No. 3 had worked until 30.6.1996 and resignation letter was dated 1.7.1996. The Respondent No. 3 in her complaint copy of which was filed before the labour Court and which was addressed to the editor had mentioned that the editor had said something very bad to her and she being a lady could not repeat those words. The labour Court did not believe the version of Sri Ajay Misra, General Manager of Petitioner who had appeared as witness of the Petitioner. Sri Misra had stated that Respondent No. 3 went to the Director and Director after accepting the resignation sent the same to him. The labour Court held that as Director was not produced hence the said version could not be accepted. It is further mentioned that there was no doubt that the Respondent No. 3 had not supported her aforesaid version in her examination-in-chief, however, in her cross examination she had stated that Dhierendra Mohan Gupta the editor had called her in his cabin and talked with her rudely and threatened her and out of fear on the direction of the editor he wrote her resignation. The labour Court held that as no evidence against that version was produced by the employer, hence there was no alternative except to accept the case of Respondent No. 3. Labour Court further held that the action of editor Dhierendra Mohan Gupta amounted to sexual harassment. Ultimately, reinstatement with full back wages was directed. The Respondent No. 3 in her cross-examination stated that Dhierendra Mohan in his chamber talked with her rudely and threatened that he would do this thing and that thing with her hence out of fear on the direction of Dhierendra Mohan she wrote her resignation and also signed on blank vouchers.