Full Judgment Text
2022:DHC:2781
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on: May 30, 2022
% Judgment pronounced on: July 18, 2022
+ W.P.(C) 1512/2020, CM APPL. 5233/2020, CM APPL. 5234/2020
PRINCE MAURYA ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Charu Ambwani, Adv.
versus
M/S CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Anurag Lakhotia and Mr. Udit
Dwivedi, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
J U D G M E N T
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA,J :
1. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner/workman
challenging the impugned award dated 30.09.2019 passed in LID
No.308/2016 by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rouse
Avenue District Court, New Delhi, titled ‘Prince Mourya vs. M/s
Cadila Healthcare Limited ’, whereby the learned labour court on the
basis of the claim petition and the reply filed by the management,
framed the following issues:
W.P.(C) 1512/2020 Page 1 of 10
2022:DHC:2781
1 Whether the services of workman have been terminated by the
management illegally/unjustifiably on 03.08.2015 in violation of
provisions of Section 25 F, G & H of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947? If so, to what effect and to what relief workman is entitled
to? OPW
2 Whether the workman has himself resigned from the services of
the management on 24.07.2015? OPM
3 Relief.
2. Learned Labour Court after considering the entire material on record
inter alia held that the petitioner had not been able to prove that his
services were terminated by the management illegally and unjustifiably
in violation of provisions of section 25 F, G and H of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. Learned labour court has also returned a finding
that the management had successfully been able to prove that the
petitioner/workman had himself resigned from the services of the
management on 24.07.2015.
3. The petitioner has challenged the award on the ground that the same is
perverse and liable to be set aside. It has been submitted that the
petitioner never resigned from the services of the
respondent/management. It has been submitted that the award is liable
to be set aside as the email, printout of the resignation filed by the
respondent were never entered on his official portal by the petitioner. It
has been submitted that the respondents who filed the e-mail printout
have neither filed any affidavit nor certificate along with the said print
out as mandatorily prescribed under Section 65 (B) of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1972, to buttress their contentions. The petitioner has
submitted that even the e-mail printout dated 24.07.2015 of resignation
W.P.(C) 1512/2020 Page 2 of 10
2022:DHC:2781
reflects that the petitioner's resignation may be accepted with effect
from 31.07.2015, whereas the acceptance of resignation vide return e-
mail dated 24.07.2015 has been filed by the respondent only. The
petitioner has stated that the management did not lead any evidence in
support of their case and therefore the evidence produced by the
petitioner remained unassailed and unchallenged.
4. The notice in the present case was issued to the respondent vide order
02.09.2021. As per order dated 15.02.2022, the learned counsel for the
respondent submitted that he does not wish to file counter affidavit and
would rely upon the records of the learned Industrial Tribunal.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that the he was appointed as a trainee
medical representative by the respondent/management on 06.05.2014
and was put on probation for a period of six months vide letter dated
01.02.2015. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on
22.07.2015, Mr. Neeraj Giri along with other field managers and
regional business managers, threatened the petitioner and took him to a
closed room and forcibly took his employer email id and password.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted on 24.07.2015, an
email was allegedly sent using the petitioner’s official email id and
password, submitting his resignation from services w.e.f. 31.07.2015.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the same was
accepted vide email dated 24.07.2015 and vide letter dated 01.08.2015,
the petitioner was relieved from the services. The petitioner came to
know about the relieving only on 10.08.2015. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that the petitioner came to know about the
fraudulent resignation on 31.07.2015 and thereafter he made a detailed
W.P.(C) 1512/2020 Page 3 of 10
2022:DHC:2781
handwritten representation to the management categorically narrating
the incident leading to his forced resignation, indicating that he wishes
to work further with the respondent/ management. The petitioner has
also annexed a CD, recording the manner in which the higher officials
of the respondent management had threatened the petitioner to resign
on 22.07.2015. The petitioner has also filed a complaint before the
SHO, Moti Nagar, New Delhi on 02.08.2015 regarding the incident
dated 22.07.2015. The petitioner has alleged that thereafter the
respondent management terminated his services on 03.08.2015 without
any notice and without assigning any valid reason. Learned counsel for
the petitioner has submitted that thereafter the petitioner filed a
complaint through his union before the Labour Office, Karampura,
Delhi on 03.08.2015, against the respondent management. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the respondent
management did not respond to the demand notice/legal notice of the
petitioner dated 18.08.2015.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner in
his evidence has categorically stated that he was made to forcibly
resign. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in fact the
petitioner was harassed from April to July, 2015 but he did not raise
any voice as he wanted to work with the respondent management.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned
Labour Court has dismissed the claim contrary to the material on
record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in fact the
forced resignation amounts to constructive discharge. Reliance has
been placed upon X vs. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya
W.P.(C) 1512/2020 Page 4 of 10
2022:DHC:2781
Pradesh and Another , 2022 SCC OnLine SC 171. Learned counsel
has submitted that in order to constitute resignation it must be
unconditional and with an intention to operate as such. Reliance has
been placed upon P.K. Ramachandra Iyer & Ors. vs. Union of India
& Ors. (1984) 2 SCC 141.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the
petitioner was appointed as a probationary medical representative on
01.02.2015 and he remained on probation and himself resigned from
the company on 24.07.2015, which was duly accepted and the
petitioner was relieved from the services with effect from 31.07.2015.
Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner was not a permanent
employee and his probation was not confirmed. Learned counsel has
further submitted that in the demand notice/legal notice dated
18.08.2015, the petitioner has stated that his services were terminated
on 03.08.2015 without any notice and any information and he was
refused to be taken back on work. It has been submitted that there is not
even a single averment in the said demand notice/legal notice regarding
taking of any forceful resignation, or taking forcefully his email id and
password or taking forceful signatures on blank papers either on
22.07.2015 or 24.07.2015. It has been submitted that in the statement
of claim filed before the Labour office also, the petitioner had not
stated anything with respect to the respondent management threatening
him or forcibly taking his resignation or forcefully taking his email id
or password and his signatures on blank papers. It has been submitted
that that petitioner has only stated that his services were terminated on
03.08.2015 without any notice or information by refusing to take him
W.P.(C) 1512/2020 Page 5 of 10
2022:DHC:2781
back on work. Learned counsel for the respondent has further
submitted that in the complaint dated 03.08.2015 to the Assistant
Labour Commissioner, the petitioner had not alleged any date of
termination. However, he has stated that his earned wages from
01.07.2015 to 01.08.2015 were being stopped and his services were
terminated and he was threatened and his signatures were taken on
blank vouchers and blank papers and thereafter, he had been given
verbal abuses and was beaten also.
8. It has been submitted that in the police complaint dated 02.08.2015 the
petitioner had given the version that on 22.07.2015 he was threatened
and tortured for three hours and was asked about his user ID and
password so that they could themselves resign on behalf of him. The
petitioner has alleged that when he refused to give his User ID and
password, his bag was snatched and he was told to leave and then on
23.07.2015 he was called and compelled to resign and threatened. On
24.07.2015, he resigned because of their non-stop threats.
9. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that all
along, the petitioner has been giving completely different versions
which had not even been pleaded in the statement of claim filed before
the learned Labour Court. Learned counsel has submitted that the
learned labour court after considering all the material has rightly held
that the petitioner’s services were not terminated illegally and the
petitioner has himself resigned from the services of the management on
24.07.2015. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner
was on probation on 31.07.2015. It has been submitted that therefore
his termination cannot be held to be illegal. Even if his services had
W.P.(C) 1512/2020 Page 6 of 10
2022:DHC:2781
been terminated then also, his services as per terms of the appointment
were rightly terminated and it is squarely covered under Section 2 (oo)
(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Learned counsel for the
respondent has placed reliance upon Nitya Nand Sinha vs. H. L.
Promoters Pvt. Ltd. & Another , 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11775.
Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted the
workman/petition does not fall within the definition of ‘workman’ as
defined under Section 2 (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Reliance has
been placed upon Novartis India Limited vs. Vipin Shrivastava and
Others , Writ Appeal. No.75/2017 passed by the Madhya Pradesh High
Court. However, learned counsel has fairly submitted that this
judgment has been subject matter of challenge before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court. He has submitted that however, there is no stay on the
subject matter. Learned counsel for the respondent has further
submitted that in the cross examination it has also revealed that the
petitioner has been gainfully employed.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the
records and the impugned order.
11. Before proceeding further, it is pivotal to examine the scope of
jurisdiction to be exercised under Article 226, Constitution of India.
The law in it has not provided any appeal against the order of the
Labour Court/Tribunal. Thus, the finding of facts by the Labour Court/
Tribunal is final, unless it is perverse. The writ court can interfere only
if there is manifest error of law. The writ court cannot interfere only
because it can reach on any other conclusion. Reliance can be placed
upon Sadhu Ram vs. Delhi Transport Corporation , AIR 1984 SC
W.P.(C) 1512/2020 Page 7 of 10
2022:DHC:2781
1467 , Indian Overseas Bank vs. I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers’ Union
and Another , (2000) 4 SCC 245, General Manager, Electrical
Rengali Hydro Electric Project, Orissa and Others vs. Giridhari Sahu
and Others, (2019) 10 SCC 695.
12. I consider that the Learned labour court has appreciated the evidence
threadbare. Learned labour court has noted that pursuant to the
resignation letter dated 24.07.2015 the petitioner was relieved vide
order dated 01.08.2015 and thereafter the police complaint was filed on
02.08.2015. It was also noted that the petitioner had not pleaded in his
demand notice dated 18.08.2015 that the senior managers of the
management had threatened him and taken his resignation forcefully.
Learned labour court also noted that the petitioner had not pleaded in
his statement of claim before the labour officer that the management
had threatened him and taken his resignation forcefully. It has been
noted that the petitioner/workman in his complaint dated 03.08.2015
filed before the Assistant Labour Commissioner has stated a different
version, that the management had obtained his signatures on blank
voucher and papers after threatening him but he did not state that the
management had obtained his resignation forcefully nor was this
pleaded in the statement of claim filed before the court. It was also
noted that the workman had not mentioned anywhere, except in the
police complaint, that his user ID and password were obtained by the
management to send his resignation to the management via email and
that he was being harassed by the senior officers of the respondent
management for four-five months. Learned labour court also noted that
the petitioner had pleaded that he resigned on 24.07.2015 because of
W.P.(C) 1512/2020 Page 8 of 10
2022:DHC:2781
the non-stop threats. It has been noted that the petitioner did not lead
any evidence to prove that he was being threatened or harassed by the
senior officers of the respondent management.
13. Respondent management has taken a specific plea that the petitioner
was on probation as on 31.07.2015. Perusal of the record indicates that
initially vide letter of appointment dated 06.05.2014, the petitioner was
appointed as a trainee medical representative with effect from
06.05.2014. Subsequently, vide communication dated 01.02.2015, the
petitioner was offered the post of a probationary medical
representative. It is pertinent to mention here that in the said
appointment letter, it was specifically mentioned that the petitioner
would be on probation for a period of six months with effect from
February 01, 2015. It is relevant to reproduce para 5 and 8b of the letter
of appointment dated February 01, 2015, which reads as under:
5. You would be probation for a period of six months from
February 1, 2015 . You would be confirmed to the post of
Medical Representative only after you have satisfactorily
completed six months probation period upto the standard
required by the Company, of which standard the company
shall be the sole judge. You will continue to be on probation
until a letter of confirmation is issued to you in writing by the
Management.
8. Other conditions of Service:
a. xxx xxx xxx
b. Any time during the period of probation, your services can be
terminated by the Company, without notice or without assigning
any reason. After confirmation, either party may terminate the
services with one month notice or by paying one month basic
salary in lieu thereof.
W.P.(C) 1512/2020 Page 9 of 10
2022:DHC:2781
14. It is not the case of the petitioner that his service was being confirmed
after the expiry of his probation period. No such document in this
regard has also been filed.
15. While dealing with a similar issue with respect to termination of
workman during extended probation period, this Court in the case of
Nitya Nand Sinha (supra), has held that termination before the expiry
of the period of probation fell within the ambit of Section 2(oo)(bb) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and does not constitute retrenchment.
16. Thus, the inevitable conclusion is that the petitioner was on probation
as on 31.07.2015. This court considers that there is no merit in the case.
There is no material which could justify any interference by this Court.
Hence the present petition along with all pending applications is
dismissed.
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J
JULY 18, 2022
rb..
W.P.(C) 1512/2020 Page 10 of 10