NANDA SHIRODKAR Vs. DCI PHARMACEUTICALS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the impugned award dated 13.04.2012 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Panaji, whereby she negated the claim of the petitioner on her plea that her termination was involuntary and it was not a case of forceful resignation and besides she was not entitled to the relief of reinstatement and with back wages.

(2.) Heard Shri V. Menezes, learned Advocate for the petitioner who submitted that she was employed with the respondents from 1972 unlike their case that she was employed with them from 1985. She was forced to resign on 26.12002 and at which time she was still having around three years of service to her credit with the age of superannuation being 58 years. However, in case she was retrenched from service, then the respondents would be liable to pay her all the terminal benefits as provided under the Act. He next adverted to the resignation letter and submitted that she was not conversant in English and which was otherwise apparent from the fact that she had signed the letter in Devnagiri. He next adverted to her affidavit in which she had set out her case, the complaint lodged to the police as also the demand for reinstatement and submitted that the case of the respondents was unbelievable that she would submit her resignation when she had completed more than 30 years of service and still had another two to three years to attain the age of superannuation. The respondents had not examined any witness in defence and which also belied the case of her voluntary resignation. Even otherwise, the plea of voluntary resignation was unbelievable when she had rendered more than 30 years of service and had barely two to three years available in balance to reach the age of superannuation. She had also not encashed the cheque nor was any suggestion put to her during her cross examination. The petition had therefore to be allowed and the petitioner entitled to the back wages after rendering a finding that the resignation was forceful and not voluntary.

(3.) Shri A. F. Diniz, learned Advocate for the respondents submitted at the outset that the Tribunal had held on facts that the petitioner's resignation was voluntary and not forceful. Therefore, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty & anr vs Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329 this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, would not interfere with the findings of fact rendered by the sub-ordinate Court. He placed reliance in the case of K. V. S. Ram vs. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, (2015) 12 SCC 39 and submitted that the findings of facts were not at all perverse and therefore no interference was called for with the impugned award under challenge. Further reliance was placed by him in K. Haridas I. Shenoy vs. Johnson & Johnson Ltd. & Ors., (2005) 2 BCR 59, Laffans India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pancham Singh Rawat & anr., (2002) 6 BCR 462, Bayer Cropscience Limited vs. Sampada S. Shetye & anr., (2007) 1 BCR 493 and Rachel Gunther Mathias vs. Mahadev R. Mishra, (2006) 4 BCR 168.