O J COELHO Vs. A L ALASPURKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the appellant (here-in-after referred to as a complainant) who was the employee, against the respondents of whom respondent no. 1 was his erstwhile employer. The appeal impuqns an order passed by a sinqle Judqe of this Court on 21.4.1998, summarily dismissing Writ petition No. 5800 of 1997 at the stage of admission and by which order the learned single Judge has held that the Industrial court Thane has rightly dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant.

(2.) The brief facts of the case as can be gathered from the record are as follows

(3.) On the merits of the case, we find that under the VRS of 1992 respondent no. 1-company had reserved their right to accept or reject any application received under the scheme without assigning any reason what-so-ever and had expressly stipulated that the company's decision in this regard would be final and binding on all concerned. The witness no. 2 examined on behalf of the complainant has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that as per the scheme, the Managing Director or the president of the company were the final authorities to accept or reject the VRS of any employee. This witness who was in fact the complainant's witness was a Consultant of the company till March-1994. He claimed to be a person who was directly involved in the framing of the scheme. In the present case there is absolutely nothing on record to show that the application for VRS made by the complainant had been accepted either by the Managing director or the president of respondent no. 1 company. A glance at the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent would indicate that it was the company's stand that the application for VRS preferred by the complainant did reach the hands of Mr. Joshi who was the Manager, Finance. It was averred that Mr. Joshi informed the respondent company that the complainant could not be relieved and the application made could not be accepted. That Mr. Joshi, Senior Manager finance, who was then the immediate superior of the compinant also informed the complainant that his application would not be considered. It is true that the company could have led its own evidence to substantiate its aforesaid case. In fact it was urqed an behalf of the complainant that this fact coupled with the fact that the original application had not been produced by the respondent in the court on the ground that the same was lost, must lead the court to draw an adverse inference that there was some endorsement on the oriqinal application to the effect that the same had been accepted. Our attention was drawn to other documents produced in evidence which were in the nature of applications made by other employees on which the endorsement of approval was made on the face of the document itself. It was contended that some such similar endorsement must be presumed to have existed on the face of the original application mads by the complainant and that the respondents had deliberately supressed this document. Normally speaking, we would have drawn an adverse inference but there are several additional circumstances in this case which prevent us from drawing such an adverse inference. These circumstances are as foilows :