The Management of Micro Electric Controls v. Labour Court & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 23-12-2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARANW.P.No.7781 of 2003 &W.P.M.P.10000 of 2003The Management of Micro Electric Controls,Rep. By its Proprietor,G.R.Jaganathan,9/174, Railway Station Road,Periyanayakkanpalayam,Coimbatore - 641 020. ..PetitionerVersus1. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore.2. C.Francis Raja ..Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of Indiapraying for the issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for records endingwith the award of the first respondent dated 11.03.2002 and made inI.D.No.322/1999 on the file of the first respondent and quash thesame.For Petitioner : Mr.S.ElambharathiFor Respondents : Mr.S.Vaidyanathan ORDERThe Management is aggrieved by the award passed by the LabourCourt reinstating the second respondent workman with backwages andcontinuity of service.2. The facts of the case are as follows:-The second respondent joined the petitioner concern asturner in the year 1990 and promoted as milling operator. The secondrespondent absented from work on 22.07.1998 and on 29.07.1998.Further he submitted his resignation and the same was accepted on30.07.1998. The second respondent was relieved on 30.07.1998. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. After a lapse of seven months, the petitioner submits thatthe second respondent raised a dispute alleging refusal employmentfrom 04.02.1999 onwards. A conciliation proceedings failed thesecond respondent raised an industrial dispute under Section 2-A(2)of I.D. Act. On appreciation of the pleadings and evidence, theLabour Court found that the petitioner denied employment to thesecond respondent properly and reinstated him as backwages andcontinuity of service. The said award is being challenged by theManagement.4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that thesecond respondent himself voluntarily submitted resignation as earlyas on 29.07.1998 and the same was accepted on 30.07.1998 relievinghim on the same day. After lapse of seven months, the secondrespondent with a view to create problems to the petitioner initiatedthe proceedings. The learned counsel attacked the award passed bythe Labour Court contending that it is contrary to the evidence.When the second respondent on his own resigned from the petitionercompany through Ex.P.3, the second respondent could not seek foremployment especially when he was relieved on 30.07.1998. The LabourCourt rejected Ex.M.3(resignation letter) stating that there was adifference between the signature found in the Ex.M.3 and thereforedid not accept the contention of the petitioner that the secondrespondent resigned on it's own.5. The learned counsel further submitted that under Section 73of the evidence act, the Court is entitled to compare the disputedsignature with the admitted signature on it's own. In stead of doingthat, the Labour Court erroneously held the burden of proof was castupon the petitioner management to prove the resignation letter. TheLabour Court failed to take note of the submission of Form-10 to theProvident Fund Office and the same was marked by the petitioner asEx.M.7. With regard to comparision of signatures the learned counselrelied upon the Judgment of this Court in R.Saravanan Vs.P.N.Peruvazhuthi reported in 2009 (5) CTC 593 wherein it was heldthat the Court could resort to comparison recording the signaturesand arrive at its own conclusion when other materials produced andevidence adduced are corroborative of such comparison. Relying onthe said Judgment, the learned counsel submitted that the LabourCourt could have resorted to comparison of the signature and withoutdoing that the Labour Court gave finding against the petitioner. Innutshell the learned counsel submitted the award is contrary theevidence available on record and therefore sought for setting asidethe award.6. On the other hand Mr.S.Vaidyanathan, learned counsel for thesecond respondent submitted that the award is based on evidence andon proper appreciation facts and evidence alone the award was passed.He contended the Labour Court correctly gave a finding recording theburden of proof with regard to proving of document namely resignation https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ letter was cast upon the petitioner. Secondly, he submitted if thesecond respondent really resigned, he would not have been allowed towork. The second respondent was worked up to 21.07.1998. If reallythe second respondent did not report to the duty the petitioner couldhave issued notice to the second respondent for not reporting to theduty, the Labour Court observed. The learned counsel furthersubmitted that the second respondent did not send the resignationletter and as per evidence, the Labour Court found that there wasdifferences between the admitted signature and the disputedsignature. Moreover, the learned counsel submitted that thepetitioner management deliberately refused to take the secondrespondent for work from 04.02.1999. In the absence of anytermination order, the second respondent cannot be denied work. Herelied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Agnani (W.M.)Vs. Badridas and others reported in 1963 (6) FLR 440 and submittedthat interference by this Court under Article 226 is very limited forjudicial review of the Labour Court award.7. A perusal of the records would show that the point forconsideration is with regard to resignation letter dated 29.07.1998(Ex.M.3). According to the second respondent, he was denied work andthat was the reason why he filed the petition before the tribunal.In the counter statement in paragraph 4 it has been categoricallystated by the petitioner herein as follows:-" The Petitioner came to the company on29.07.1998, submitted his resignation stating that heis not willing to work and asked the respondent toaccept his resignation, relieve him and settle hisaccounts. The respondent considered his resignation,accepted the same and relieved him of his duties fromthe morning of 30.07.1998 vide the respondent'srelieving order dated 30.07.1998." When a categorical stand is taken in the counter statement pleadingresignation of the second respondent, it is bounden duty of themanagement to prove the said fact. In other words the burden ofproof was cast upon the person who relies upon the said document.Though law of evidence is not strictly followed in the Labour Court,still its rudimentary principle that a person who relies upon thematerial has to prove the due exhibition. In this case the LabourCourt gave cogent reasons elaborately as to why the theory ofresignation could not be accepted by it in paragraphs 10,12,13,14 and16. The Labour Court based on M.W.2(petitioner's witness) admissionobserved as follows:-"kDjhuh; jug;gpy; ep/rh/M/3y; cs;sJ kDjhuUilaifbahg;gk; ,y;iy vd;W KGikahf kWf;Fk; gl;rj;jpy;ep/rh/M/3y; cs;sJ kDjhuUila ifbahg;gk; jhd; vd;gijepUgdk; bra;antz;oaJ eph;thfj;jpd; flikahf cs;sJ. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ kDjhuh; jug;gpy; bjh/rh/M/3 milahs ml;il vd;Wk;. ep/rh/M/3uh$pdhkh fojk; vd;Wk;. ,uz;L ifbahg;gj;jpw;Fk;ntWghLfs; ,Ug;gjhft[k;. bjh/rh/M/3d; cs;s ifbaGj;jpw;FfPnH nfhL ,y;iy vd;Wk;. Mdhy; ep/rh/M/3 fojj;jpy; cs;sifbaGj;jpw;F fPnH nfhL ,Ug;gjhft[k;. mg;go nfhL nghLk;gHf;fk; kDjhuUf;F fpilahJ vd;Wk;. kDjhuuhy; xg;g[f;bfhs;sg;gl;Ls;s ifbaGj;ija[k;. ep/rh/M/3y; cs;sifbaGj;ija[k; xg;gpl;L ghh;j;jhny cz;ik epiy bjhpa tha;g;g[,Ug;gjhf Twg;gl;Ls;sJ/ mJ Fwpj;J ep/rh/1 mtUilarhl;rpaj;jpy; bjh/rh/M/3 milahs ml;il eph;thfj;jhy;kDjhuUf;;F bfhLf;fg;gl;lJ vd;Wk;. ifbaGj;Jf;F fPnHnfhL ,y;iy vd;Wk; ep/rh/M/3y; cs;s ifbaGj;jpw;Fk;.bjh/rh/M/3y; cs;s ifbaGj;jpw;Fk; tpj;jpahrk; ,Ug;gjhft[k;rhl;rpak; mspj;Js;shh;. eph;thfj;jug;g[ rhl;rpna ifbaGj;jpy;tpj;jpahrk; cs;sJ vd;gij xg;g[f;bfhz;oUf;fpd;whh;/mg;goapUf;Fk;gl;rj;jpy; ep/rh/M/3y; cs;sJ kDjhuUilaifbahg;gk; jhd; vd;gij epUgzk; bra;tjw;F eph;thfk;kDjhuUila ifbaGj;ij ifbaGj;J epg[zUf;F mDg;g[cz;ik epiyia epUgzk; bra;jpUf;fyhk;. Mdhy; mg;goepUgzk; bra;a eph;thfk; jtwptpl;lJ/"8. The petitioner could have sent the alleged resignation letterto hand writing expert to confirm the signature found in Ex.M.3 isthat of the second respondent. However, the petitioner miserablyfailed to do same. 9. In paragraph 11 of the award, the Tribunal held that if thepetitioner wrote to the labour authorities through Ex.P.1 and P.2 andtherefore there was no possibility of sending the resignation letterby the second respondent. Moreover, in paragraph 13, the LabourCourt thoroughly examined about Form-10 which ought to have been sentto the Provident Fund Authorities. Though it was contended by thepetitioner that form 10 through Ex.M.9 was sent, the Labour Courtfound that there was no proof for having sent Form-10 to the saidauthority and therefore it was rejected by the Labour Court.10. Apart from that if the second respondent voluntarilyresigned on 29.07.1998, the second respondent's accounts could havebeen settled by the petitioner and there was no proof having settledthe second respondent accounts by payment or by any other document.The above was taken note of by the Tribunal in paragraph 15 of awardcorrectly.11. The Labour Court is the last forum of determination offacts. A finding of fact has been given with regard to theresignation letter relied upon by the petitioner that there was nopossibility of submitting the resignation by the second respondent.Such a finding cannot be found fault with as it is based on evidence https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and the finding is based on cogent reasons and the same cannot befound fault.12. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 is verylimited. This Court is not an appellate forum, as decided by theSupreme Court in a number of Judgements. Only, in case ofmiscarriage of justice and the award passed is contrary to evidenceor on no evidence the same can be set aside. In this case no suchthing has happened.13. In view of that, the award of the Labour Court is confirmedand the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarsmnTo The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore.+ 1 c.c. to Mr. S. Vaidyanathan, Advocate. S.R.No.71452.+ 1 c.c. to Mr. K.J. Rebello, Advocate. S.R.No.71163. W.P.No.7781 of 2003 and W.P.M.P.10000 of 2003SR (CO)GSK 06.03.2010.