S.Ramajayam v. The Management of Varanthara Rani

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 4.2.2008CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.MISRAandTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARANW.A.Nos.298 to 300 of 2006andW.A.M.P.Nos.619 and 620 of 2006S.Ramajayam... Appellant in all W.As./2 nd Respondent in WP.37216/02 petitionerin WP.23465/03 and 9562/99Vs.The Management of Varanthara Rani,No.1091, Periya E.V.R.High Road,Chennai - 600 007.The Presiding Officer,IInd Additional Labour Court,Chennai - 600 104.... Respondents in W.A.No.298/2006/Petitioner&1st Respondent in WP.37216/02The Presiding Officer,Ist Additional Labour Court,Chennai - 600 104.The Management of "Thina Thanthi",46, EVK Sampath Road,Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.... Respondents in W.A.No.299/2006/ Respondents in WP.23465/03 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The Presiding Officer,Ist Additional Labour Court,Chennai - 600 104.The Management of Rani Comics,No.1091, Periya E.V.R.High Road,Chennai-600 007. ... Respondents in W.A.No.300/2006/Respondents in WP.9562/99Writ Appeals filed Under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Actagainst the common order dated 30.03.2005 in W.P.Nos.37216/2002,23465/2003 and 9562/1999 respectively. Presented under Article 226 ofthe constitution of India to issue writs of certiorarified mandamuscalling for the records of the first respondent relating to the awarddated 11.04.2002 made in ID.No.340/96; and quash the same.(inWP.37216/02)(ii) Calling for the records of the 1st respondent in connection withthe Award dated 11.5.98 in I.D.No.338/94 and quash the same and directthe second respondent to reinstate the petitioner as News Editor in theNewspaper establishment of "Thina Thanthi," Chennai with continuity ofservice, full back-wages from March, 1988 and with all other attendantbenefits thereof(in WP.23465/03); and (iii) Calling for the records of the first respondent labour Court inconnection with the impugned award dated 14.8.1995 in I.D.No.874/90 andquash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to re-instate the petitioner with back-wages, continuity in service etc., (inWP.9562/99).For Appellant : Mr.S.Ramajayam in all WAs Party-in-personFor 1st Respondentin W.A.No.298/2006 &R-2 in W.A.Nos.299: Mr.A.L.Somayaji, SC and 300/2006 For Mr.V.Sanjeevi https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ COMMON JUDGMENTK.K.SASIDHARAN, JThese writ appeals are directed against the common order dated30.03.2005 in W.P.Nos.37216/2002, 23465/2003 and 9562/1999, whereby thelearned Single Judge set aside the Award dated 11.04.2002 inI.D.No.340/1996 and confirmed the Award dated 11.05.1998 and 14.08.1995in I.D.Nos.338/1994 and 874/1990 respectively on the file of the LabourCourt, Chennai.2. In W.A.No.299 of 2006, pertaining to I.D.No.338/1994 whichwas challenged in W.P.No.23465/2003, the appellant challenged the non-employment in 'Dina Thanthi' with effect from 10.06.1981.3. In W.A.No.298 of 2006, with respect to I.D.No.340/1996which was challenged in W.P.No.37216 of 2002, the grievance of theappellant relates to non-employment in 'Varanthara Rani' (Rani Weekly)from 01.07.1984.4. In W.A.No.300 of 2006, the order under challenge is theAward in I.D.No.874/1990 which was challenged in W.P.No.9562 of 1999 andthe matter relates to non-employment in 'Rani Comics' from 16.03.1988.5. The factual back ground necessary for deciding the writappeals are as below:The appellant joined the service in 'Daily Thanthi' in theyear 1962 and he was employed there till 09.06.1981 and subsequently hewas working with 'Rani Weekly'. It is his further contention that from01.07.1984 to 15.03.1988, he was working with 'Rani Comics'. Hisservices were utilised by 'Rani Weekly' between the period 10.06.1981and 30.06.1984. It is also the contention of the appellant that he wasmade to resign on 15.03.1988 and subsequently he raised a disputeagainst the Management of 'Rani Comics' which was taken on file inI.D.No.874/1990 by the First Additional Labour Court, Madras and it wasultimately dismissed. The appellant also raised a dispute against 'RaniWeekly' (Varanthara Rani) challenging his termination order dated01.07.1984 and the said dispute, which was raised long after the orderof termination, was the subject matter in I.D.No.340/1996 and the samewas allowed in his favour, whereby he was directed to be reinstated withfull back wages calculated from 15.03.1988 and with continuity ofservice and all attendant benefits thereof. 6. The appellant raised another dispute challenging thetermination in 'Daily Thanthi' on 10.06.1981 in I.D.No.338/1994 and thesaid dispute was also decided against him.7. The Award in I.D.Nos.874/1990 and 338/1994 was challengedby the appellant by way of two writ petitions whereas the Award inI.D.No.340/1996 was challenged by the Management. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8. The learned Single Judge considered the Award in all thethree matters together and, having found that the appellant has resignedthe job voluntarily and obtained the benefits consequent to hisresignation in full and final satisfaction of the claim and alsoencashed the cheque, rejected the claim of the appellant and it is thesaid common order which is impugned in the three writ appeals referredto above.9. We have heard the appellant in person and Mr.A.L.Somayaji,learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Management.10. The appellant in I.D.No.340/1996 agitated his non-employment in 'Varanthara Rani' (Rani Weekly) with effect from01.07.1984. The said I.D. was decided in favour of the appellant and thefindings of the Labour Court was challenged by the respondent Managementand ultimately the contention of the Management was accepted by thelearned Single Judge inasmuch as the issue raised in I.D.No.340/1996 hasalready been decided in I.D.No.874/1990 as per Award dated 14.08.1995against the appellant. 11. Even though the contention of the appellant inI.D.No.340/1996 pertains to his non-employment in 'Varanthara Rani'(Rani Weekly) from 01.07.1984, his contention in I.D.No.874/1990 wascontradictory, inasmuch as his contention in I.D.No.874/1990 was to theeffect that since the Management asked him to work as Editor of theMagazine 'Rani Comics', he joined the service of 'Rani Comics' as itsEditor on 01.07.1984. It is his further case that since 'VarantharaRani' (Rani Weekly) wanted his service, he offered his service as parttime Feature Editor of 'Varanthara Rani' (Rani Weekly) from 01.07.1984and as such, he had been full time Editor of 'Rani Comics' and part timeFeature Editor of 'Varanthara Rani' (Rani Weekly) and according to him,there was no objection from the Management to the said cause of action.The appellant further contended in the said I.D. that from 01.07.1984 onwards, the petitioner was full time Editor of the Magazine 'Rani Comics'and his contract of service was only with 'Rani Comics' and not with'Varanthara Rani' (Rani Weekly). In fact, in the reply statement filedin I.D.No.874/1990, there is a clear admission on the part of theappellant that he was not seeking re-employment in 'Varanthara Rani'(Rani Weekly). Since it is the case of the appellant that he was in theservice of Rani Syndicate which owns both 'Rani Comics' and 'VarantharaRani', the question of non-employment from 01.07.1984 in 'VarantharaRani' loses significance as he continued to be in service till15.03.1988.12. The grievance of the appellant in I.D.No.338/1994 pertainsto his non-employment in 'Daily Thanthi' from 10.06.1981 and theaverments made in I.D.No.338/1994 is considered in the face of thecontention in I.D.No.874/1990, it is seen that he was appointed in'Varanthara Rani' on 10.06.1981 and prior to that he had settled thematter with 'Daily Thanthi' on 09.06.1981. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

13. The non-employment in 'Rani Comics' with effect from16.03.1988 was the issue in I.D.No.874/1990 which was challenged inW.P.No.9562 of 1999. In the said dispute, the relief claimed was forreinstatement with back wages in 'Rani Comics'. In the said dispute, theLabour Court, after considering the materials produced on either side,came to a categorical finding that the appellant resigned from 'RaniComics' as per his resignation letter dated 15.03.1988 which was markedas Ex.W.20 and also found that as per Ex.W.26, the amount was paid infull and final satisfaction of the claim. It is also on record that theappellant encashed the cheque on 17.03.1988 itself. Later in the placeof the appellant, one Kalyana Sundaram was appointed in 'Rani Comics'.14. The learned Single Judge considered the whole issue withreference to the pleadings and the evidence adduced on either side andrejected the contention of the appellant by a well considered order.15. The appellant during the course of his argument contendedthat the settlement is bad, as calculation was not made in accordancewith the salary drawn by him and he was also denied the pay structure asawarded by Justice Palackar Award and as such, the whole settlement isbad and, if it is found that the settlement is bad, he is entitled to bereinstated in service. The appellant also cited judgments tosubstantiate his case that the settlement is bad and as such, he has tobe reinstated in service of the respondent Management. Since the learnedSingle Judge has considered the whole issue, it is not necessary to dealwith those judgments, as there is no quarrel with regard to the legalproposition made in those judgments. We have gone through the judgmentsand none of the judgments are applicable to the present case, as factsherein are entirely different, more so on account of the fact that thepresent case relates to the voluntary resignation submitted by theappellant and the acceptance long ago. The appellant has relied on thejudgment of the Apex Court in the case of Srikantha S.M. v. M/s.BharathEarth Movers Ltd., reported in 2005(7) Supreme 209 for the position thatthere was, in fact, no resignation in the eye of law so as to sever therelationship between the appellant and the first respondent. The saidjudgment relates to a case wherein on account of frequent transfers, theappellant in the said case submitted his resignation and even before theacceptance of the resignation by the employer, the appellant changed hismind and has withdrawn his resignation and it is in the said context,the Apex Court made the observation as contained in the said judgment.So far as the present case is concerned, the appellant has submitted hisresignation, accepted the amount given by the employer in full and finalsatisfaction of his claim and also encashed the cheque. Therefore, thesaid judgment has no application in respect of the case pleaded by theappellant. The appellant has also relied on the judgment of theHonourable Supreme Court in the case of Ajaib Singh v. The Sirhind Co-operative Marketing -cum- Processing Service Society Ltd. and anotherreported in AIR 1999 SC 1351 and contended that even where there isdelay in approaching the authorities, the Court can mould the relief.The said judgment has no application in the present case inasmuch as theclaim was rejected not on account of delay and the contention of theappellant has been rejected only on merits. Similarly, the appellantrelied on the judgment of the Apex Court in M/s.Nicks (India) Tools vs. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Ram Surat reported in 2004(6) Supreme 320 and contended that the burdenof proving that the employee left the services is on the employer. Infact the issue involved in the said judgment pertains to illegaltermination of an employee without any notice, charge sheet or enquiry.The said judgment has also no application in respect of the dispute inthe present appeals inasmuch as the appellant has voluntarily resignedand the factum of resignation, acceptance of the settlementcompensation, etc., were dealt with by the Labour Court extensively. 16. The case as projected by the appellant shows that he seeksreinstatement in all the three newspapers. The appellant contended thathe was in service from 1962 to 15.03.1988 and such being the case, thequestion of non-employment from 10.06.1981 to 30.06.1984 does not ariseat all. 17. The appellant vehemently contended that since thesettlement amount falls short of actual entitlement, the very settlementis invalid and he should be reinstated with full back wages. However, itis on record that the appellant has received the entire amount in fulland final satisfaction of the claim and he has also encashed the chequegiven to him and it is only after long lapse of time, he has come upwith a case that the settlement is bad on account of the payment of lessamount than the actual sum which he is entitled. 18. It is the further contention of the appellant that Ex.W.20was in respect of his part time employment with 'Rani Weekly' and it hasnothing to do with the 'Rani Comics'. On the other hand, it is thecontention of the respondent Management that Rani Syndicate is the ownerof both the organisations and the settlement was arrived at between theappellant and the Rani Syndicate which owns both the publications andthe cheque was also issued by Rani Syndicate. It is also contended bythe contesting respondent that the appellant has resigned the job forstarting a new magazine, by name 'James Bond'. The Labour Courtconsidered all the exhibits marked on either side and arrived at theconclusion that the appellant is not entitled for the relief as prayedfor by him. As per Ex.W.19 dated 15.03.1988, it is seen that theappellant has received a sum of Rs.15,413.30 from 'Rani Weekly' andEx.W.20 dated 15.03.1988 is the resignation letter given by theappellant and Ex.W.26 is the full and final settlement voucher. TheLabour Court also considered Exs.W.29 to W.32 which are James Bond NovelBook and the appellant has admitted that since he was denied employmentby the Management, he was compelled to join as the Editor of James Bond.The Labour Court also found on the basis of the available materials thatthe appellant worked in 'Daily Thanthi' and on settling his accounts, hewas appointed as Editor in 'Rani Weekly' and later he was appointed asFeature Editor of 'Rani Comics'. In Ex.W.20, the appellant has statedthat he is resigning the job, as he wants to start his own business andrequested to settle his account and to relieve him immediately. In hisevidence, the appellant has admitted the said document and also hissignature. However, it was the case of the appellant before the LabourCourt that Ex.W.20 was given as per the direction of the Manager and asthere was no evidence in support the said contention of the appellant,the Labour Court negatived the said contention. The appellant hasaccepted the cheque issued by the Management and encashed the same https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ within two days. The appellant has no case initially that what was givento him was less than the actual entitlement and it was only before theLabour Court, he has raised all these disputes in respect of resignationas well as the invalidity of settlement. The Labour Court also foundfrom the subsequent conduct of the appellant in starting a magazine, byname James Bond that the resignation of the appellant from therespondent organisation was voluntary. Similarly, in I.D.No.338/1994also, all the contentions raised by the appellant were answered on thebasis of the materials available before the Labour Court. In the saiddispute, the appellant has also contended that Ex.M.3-Service Registerhas not been closed on 09.06.1981 and as such, it has to be taken thatthe employment of the appellant has continued and as such, he should bereinstated in 'Daily Thanthi' from 09.06.1981 on wards along with backwages and continuity of service and the salary received from 'VarantharaRani' and 'Rani Comics' upto March 1988 could be deducted from the backwages. However, from the evidence of the appellant himself and from thedocuments Exs.W.1 to W.23 as well as the documents in Exs.M.1 to M.7,the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the appellant has resignedfrom the establishment of the respondent Management by receiving theentire amount and as such, he had no right to seek any relief as claimedin the dispute and ultimately answered the issues against the appellant.The learned Single Judge considered the entire matter with reference tothe order of the Labour Court and the materials on record and held thatthe Award in I.D.No.338/1994 and I.D.No.874/1990 does not call forinterference and since the entire aspect of the matter inI.D.No.340/1996 has already been considered in I.D.No.874/1990, thelearned Single Judge set aside the Award dated 11.04.2002 inI.D.No.340/1996 and allowed the writ petition preferred by theManagement. 19. The Labour Court considered the entire evidence withreference to the pleadings in I.D.Nos.338 of 1994 and 874 of 1990 andthose findings cannot be termed to be an erroneous finding or perverseso as to interfere in a writ petition under Article 226 of theConstitution of India. The Court exercising jurisdiction under Article226 of the Constitution of India in respect of an Award of the LabourCourt or Tribunal is not as an appellate authority and while exercisingjudicial review, the Court is only expected to consider as to whetherthe finding is perverse or is not supported by any evidence and in agiven situation, if two views are possible, the views of the Court offacts has to be given due weight. Judicial review is concerned aboutillegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety and the Court couldalso examine as to whether a decision taken by the Tribunal isreasonable or not in the facts and circumstances of the case. But theCourt cannot substitute its judgment unless the same is shown to beperverse or erroneous being based on no evidence. Therefore, looking atevery angle, the findings given by the Labour Court in I.D.Nos.338 of1994 and 874 of 1990 appears to be correct. The Award of the LabourCourt in I.D.No.340 of 1996 appears to be made without considering theAward in I.D.No.874 of 1990 and as such, the learned Single Judge wasjustified in confirming the Award in I.D.Nos.338 of 1994 and 874 of 1990and setting aside the Award in I.D.No.340 of 1996. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

20. The appellant is seeking reinstatement in all the threenewspapers on the ground that the termination is illegal. All thecontentions raised by the appellant were answered by the Labour Court onthe basis of the pleadings and evidence adduced by both the parties andthose findings were considered by the learned Single Judge in its properperspective and all the issues were found against the appellant and assuch, we do not find any reason to interfere in the well consideredjudgment of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, all the Writ Appealsare dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case,there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connectedmiscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.SMLSd/- Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1.The Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, Chennai - 600 104.2.The Presiding Officer, I Additional Labour Court, Chennai - 600 104.+1 cc to Mr.V.Sanjeevi, Advocate Sr.No.5348.NG(CO)DCP/11.2W.A.Nos.298 to 300 of 2006