Rajesh Kiro, aged about 46 years, s/o Somra Kiro, r/o village Nathpur, Karam Toli v. 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.The Secretary, Dept. of Labour, Employment & Training Govt. of
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction) LPA No. 263 of 2023 Rajesh Kiro, aged about 46 years, s/o Somra Kiro, r/o village Nathpur, Karam Toli, PO Palkot, PS Palkot, District Gumla .... Appellant/Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.The Secretary, Dept. of Labour, Employment & Training Govt. of Jharkhand at Nepal House, Doranda, GPO Ranchi, PS Doranda, District Ranchi 3.Under Secretary, Dept. of Labour, Employment & Training, Govt. of Jharkhand at Nepal house, Doranda, GPO Ranchi, PS Doranda, District Ranchi 4.Deputy Labour Commissioner Jamshedpur, PO and PS Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum 5.Labour Superintendent cum Conciliation Officer, PO and PS Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum 6.M/s Suraj Associates (Contractor) Manager Contract Cell Jojobera Cement Cell Plant, PO, PS and District East Singhbhum --------------- CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ... Respondents/Respondents For the Appellant For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Umesh Kumar Choubey, Advocate : Mr. Amit Raj Kisku, AC to GA-V --------------- 30th January 2024 Per, Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. This appeal has been filed against order dated 6th July 2022
Decision
passed in WP(L) No. 2927 of 2021 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the appellant never resigned from the service rather signature was forcefully taken and therefore the matter was of termination and not resignation. He submits that this aspect of the matter was not considered properly by the learned Labour Court nor the same has been considered properly by the learned writ Court and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned writ Court dismissing the writ petition calls for interference. The learned counsel further submits that the 2 LPA No. 263 of 2023 The learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer order passed by the learned Labour Court is fit to be set-aside and the appellant be reinstated in service with consequential reliefs. 3. of the appellant. 4. gone through the Award dated 20th January 2016 passed by the learned After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court has Labour Court, Jamshedpur in Reference Case No. 7 of 2011. The term of the Reference was as follows: “Whether the demand to reinstate Shri Rajesh Kiro, workman, M/s Suraj India Limited, Jojobera, associate Jamshedpur is Justified? If yes, what relief he is entitled to?” (contractor) of M/s Lafarge 5. It was the case of the appellant before the learned Labour Court that he was employed and was working as Loader Machine Operator from April, 2000 till 22nd January 2003 and he never committed any misconduct. It was his further case that on and from 23rd January 2003 the services of the workman were terminated illegally and he was not allowed by the security staff to enter the gate of the cement plant and he was verbally communicated about his illegal termination. It was his further case that about 3 months prior to 23rd January 2003 the officials of M/s Suraj Associates (Contractor) had called the appellant in their office on 17th October 2002 and by intimidating and threatening for life forcibly obtained his signature on a resignation letter prepared by them. Thereafter, the appellant was allowed to work till 22nd January 2003 and was illegally terminated. 6. On the other hand, the specific case of the respondent no.6 was that the appellant was a temporary contract worker working in execution of contract job of M/s Suraj Associates Limited awarded by M/s Lafarge India Limited, Jamshedpur. It was their specific case that on 23rd January 2003 the appellant submitted a letter of resignation stating that for his personal reasons he wanted to leave the job because he wanted to go to his native place and work there and after submission of his resignation letter and before its acceptance, he abandoned his duty and was not coming for work without waiting for acceptance of his resignation. On 2nd February 2003 his resignation was put up before the authorized officials of the respondent no.6 for consideration who accepted the resignation of the appellant with immediate effect. It was the further case of the 3 LPA No. 263 of 2023 respondent no.6 that the appellant ceased to be in employment on his own action of resignation. 7. letter dated 8th February 2003 (exhibit M4) the management enclosed a It was also brought on record by the respondent no.6 that vide cheque of Rs. 4,292.26 towards final settlement of the appellant and it was also brought on record that the said cheque was credited in the bank account of appellant which was maintained in the State Bank of India and in April 2003, the appellant withdrew a sum of Rs. 4,000/- from his bank account for his consumption. 8. This Court finds that before the learned Labour Court, the appellant-workman had examined only one witness, that is, himself and as many as 15 documents were exhibited. The Management-respondent no.6 had examined one witness and exhibited as many as 5 documents. The learned Labour Court considered the materials on record and has recorded a finding at paragraph no. 22 of the Award that on the basis of oral and documentary evidences on behalf of both the parties it appeared that the appellant had submitted his resignation letter on 23rd January 2003 which was accepted on 2nd February 2003 and the acceptance of his resignation was also communicated to him on 8th February 2003 vide exhibit M2. The learned Labour Court rejected the claim of the workman that there was forceful resignation after appreciating the materials on record. The learned Labour Court recorded its findings at paragraph no. 22. The findings of the learned Labour Court at paragraph no. 22 is quoted as under: “22. On going through the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties, it appears that on 23.01.2003 the workman had submitted his resignation letter which was accepted on 02.02.2003 by the management and acceptance of his resignation was communicated to the workman on 08.02.2003 vide Ext. M/2. This fact has been admitted by the workman in his cross-examination. The workman has also admitted his resignation letter and signature thereon which has been marked as Ext. M/3. So for his forceful resignation is concerned, he submitted his resignation letter on 23.01.2003 which was accepted on 02.02.2003 and letter of acceptance was issued on 08.02.2003, even then the workman never raised voice against his alleged forceful resignation. The statement of final settlement was prepared on 03.02.2003 for Rs. 4292.26/- and was credited in the Bank account of the workman and in April 2003 the workman also with drew a sum of Rs. 4,000/- from his Bank Account without any protest. Thereafter on 29.05.2003 the workman submitted a letter to the management and requested the employer to reinstate him. In the said letter he had not disclosed that his 4 LPA No. 263 of 2023 signature was obtained by force on resignation letter. On 25.09.2003 for the first time vide Ext. W/10 he disclosed that he was forced to sign on resignation letter at the point of pistol. It appears that from 27.10.2002 to 25.09.2003 he never raised dispute about his voluntarily resignation or forceful resignation. The workman W.W. No. 1 in his cross-examination vide para-26 has admitted that he never lodged complainant to police or Labour Department about his forceful resignation. The said fact goes to show that workman would not have kept quite if he was intimidated or threatened or his signature was procured forcibly on resignation letter, he would definitely have made compliant to the concerned authority. It appears that he never wrote any letter making such kind of allegations till 25.09.2003. It further appears that all dues of the workman were paid after acceptance of resignation of the workman by the management and after with drawing the same, the workman started raising dispute. The facts and circumstances of the case go to show that the workman has voluntarily given resignation and all his dues has been settled and he has received and his allegation that resignation was taken by force in not correct.” 9. This Court finds that the learned Labour Court has considered all the relevant materials on record and answered the Reference against the appellant. No illegality or perversity as such has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant which called for interference by the learned writ Court in the Award passed by the learned Labour Court. This Court finds that the learned writ Court has also gone through the Award and dismissed the writ petition by a reasoned order. The discussions and findings of the learned writ Court is as under: “Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted, that the respondent authorities has obtained a purported resignation letter of petitioner on 23.01.2003. Since, the petitioner being a workman, who was eager to continue in the job could not dare to make complaint of such act of the respondent authorities before the competent police officer or the competent authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that such complaint was made before the higher authority on 29.05.2003, but the same has not been considered by the higher authority, as such the impugned award may be set aside. Learned counsel for the respondents/State, Mr. Neel Abhijit Toppo, A.C. to Mr. Jayant Franklin Toppo, S.C.-VII has submitted, that the award has been passed on the basis of proper appreciation of the materials adduced by both the sides, which have been dealt in para-17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the impugned Award and thus, learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur has gave a clear cut finding that workman is not entitled to any relief. Learned counsel for the respondents / State has further submitted, that it was only on the request made by the petitioner that he does not want to continue in service and he wants to do work in his native village, the resignation was accepted and after final settlement, payment was made in the Bank account of petitioner, as such, petitioner cannot assail the same 5 LPA No. 263 of 2023 after a long time, as the award is based on facts, which may not be interfered by this Court. Considering the rival submissions of the parties and looking into facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the evidence, properly discussed and recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned award dated 20.01.2016 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in Reference Case No. 07/2011. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.” 10. This Court finds that the learned Labour Court as well as the learned writ Court have passed well-reasoned orders. No ground for interference has been made out in this appeal and, accordingly, this Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. (Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.) (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Tanuj