SUBE SINGH Vs. RASHTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The workman in W.P.No.26696/2003 and the management in W.P.No.1151/2004 have challenged the award dtd. 24/9/2003 in Industrial Dispute LCID No.6/2001 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad. The award was disposed of by the Tribunal with the following observations:

(2.) Heard.

(3.) Reiterating the pleadings in the W.P.No.26696/2003 learned counsel for the writ petitioner/workman Sri M.L. Ali would argue that in view of Ex.W7 threatening letter dtd. 13/2/1992 issued by the MW2- Sri B.V. Ramana, Manager (Mechanical) threatening the petitioner with dire consequences if he did not resign his job, the petitioner who hails from Haryana State and had no local strength or support had to submit his resignation under Ex.W8 - resignation letter dtd. 28/12/1992 under protest. Learned counsel would submit that in the said letter the petitioner has clearly mentioned that he was submitting resignation from service due to the threatening letter sent by Sri B. V. Ramana. He also mentioned therein that he approached the higher authorities at Visakhapatnam and explained about the matter and requested to take appropriate action and safeguard his service and also take action against Sri B.V. Ramana. However, the management did not take any action. Thus his tendering resignation to the service was due to duress and coercion applied against him but not out of free volition. Learned counsel further argued that without conducting any enquiry and giving a fair opportunity to the petitioner to prove the allegation of threat and coercion applied against him by B.V. Ramana and without taking any action against the said officer and without conducting enquiry by following due procedure of law, the respondent authorities simply accepted the resignation of the petitioner on 15/3/1993 and thereby the petitioner was denuded of the principles of natural justice. He placed reliance on Seetharamaiah v. Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Limited, Secunderabad, . Learned counsel would further submit that immediately the petitioner submitted Ex.W12 - Mercy Appeal dtd. 23/3/1993 to the 1st respondent requesting him to take necessary action in the matter. However, as there was no response from the authorities, the petitioner filed W.P.No.14643 of 1997 before High Court of Andhra Pradesh seeking writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of his mercy appeal dtd. 23/3/1993 but the said writ petition was dismissed by order dtd. 15/7/1997 (Ex.W23). The appeal in Writ Appeal No.905/1997 filed by him was also dismissed by division bench of High Court of A.P. by order dtd. 20/8/1997 (Ex.W24). Learned counsel would further submit that challenging Ex.W11 office order dtd. 15/3/1993 accepting his resignation without holding enquiry, the petitioner filed L.C.I.D No.6/2001. Learned counsel would submit that though the Industrial Tribunal opined that there was some element of coercion for his resignation, instead of setting aside the termination order only granted five months salary on the ground that there was a delay in petitioner's approaching the Court. Learned counsel would submit that in the circumstances of the case the delay could not have been considered as a major factor. On the aspect of the delay he relied upon Raghubir Singh v. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, (2014) 10 SCC 301 = . Learned counsel would strenuously argue that a forcible obtaining of resignation would tantamount to termination of the service by the employer which would be a stigma on the employee. He placed reliance on Vice-Chancellor, Sri Padmavathi Mahila Viswavidyalayam, Tirupathi v. V.N. Das, 2001 (4) ALD 806 = , R.D. Surve v. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., 1989 LAB.I.C. 1406 (Bombay High Court), Shriram Swami Shikshan Sanstha, Nagpur v. Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, 1984 LAB.I.C. 100 (Bombay High Court at Nagpur Bench) and M/s. Southern Roadways Ltd, Bangalore v. K. Padmanabhan, 1979 LAB.I.C. 234. Learned counsel thus ultimately submitted that the award of the tribunal is unsustainable and may be set aside.