Allowed

Bayer Cropscience Ltd. v. Ms. Sampada S. Shetye and Anr.

Bombay HC10 Apr 2006WP/947/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed Labour Court order finding respondent workman's resignation forced and her termination unlawful. Petitioner company had filed this writ to challenge the impugned reference order.

What did the court decide?

Labour Court order dated 14th December 2005 quashed and set aside; reference dismissed; no order as to costs.

Bayer Cropscience Ltd. Vs Ms. Sampada S… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION No. 947 OF 2006 Bayer Cropscience Limited ] (Formerly M/s Bayer (India) ] Ltd.), A Company incorporated under the Indian Companies ] Act, 1956 having registered ] office at Bayer House, ] Hiranaadani Gardens, Pawai ] Mumbai,400 076 and Factory ] at Kolshet Road, Thane. ] Petitioner Vs. 1. Ms. Sampada S. Shetye ] 2/63, Tulsi Bldg, 178, ] Khetwadi Back Road ] Mumbai 400 004. ] ] 2. Shri Thakre, ] Presiding Officer, ] 3rd Labour Court Bombay, ] having its office at ] Administrative Bldg., ] Ground Floor, Bandra(East) ] Mumbai - 400 051. ]Respondents Mr. K. M. Naik - a/w R. N. Salgaonkar & Mr. Gaonkar i/b Salgaonkar & Co. for petitioner.

¶4

Mr. G. S. Kulkarni for the Respondent.

¶5

CORAM : S.U. KAMDAR, J. DATE : APRIL 10, 2006.

¶6

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

¶7

. Rule returnable forthwith.

¶8

2.		Heard	parties.	The im	pugned o	rder,
which	is	chal	lenged	in	the	present	petition is
passed	by	the	L	abour	court	in a	reference,
preferred	by	the	resp	ondent	no.1	workman.	By
the	said	impugn	ed	order,	it	is	held that

¶9

resignation	of	the	respo	ndent No.1	was	obtained
by	force	and	thus,	the resig	nation is	invalid.
Secondly,	it	is	held	that there	is an	illegal
termination		of	services	of the	respondent	no.1
with	effect	from	27th	September,	1995.	The
Labour	Court	has	also	directed	reinstatement	of

¶10

the respondent no.1 with full back wages and

¶11

continuity of service.

¶12

Some of the material facts are as under:-

¶13

.	Respondent no.1	was an e	mployee of the
petitioner	company and	was	working as te	lephone
operator	cum receptioni	st.	On 27th Sep	tember,
1985	when the respo	ndent	reported on the	duty,
she pu	nched the atten	dance	card of	Miss
Cnynthia	Misquitta at	about	8.47 a.m. It	is
the	case of the re	spondent	no.1 that since	the
attendance	card of Ms.		Cynthia Misquitta	was
adjacent	to her card	she	punched the same	by
mistake,	thinking that	it	is her	card.
However,	it is the	case	of the petitioner	that
it has	been observed	from	some time that	the
attendance	card of Ms.		Cynthia Misquitta	has
been	deliberately punche	d, b	y somebody to	mark

¶14

her	attendance, even	though she	has	remained
absent,	and therefore,	an obse	rvation was	kept
on	the persons punching	the cards.	It is	the
case	of the petitioner	that the	respondent	no.1
was	caught red handed	and since	she was	caught
red	handed, she tend	ered her	resignation	from
her	services, immediately	on the	same da	y i.e.
27.9.1985.	It is f	urther c	ase of	the
petitioner	that the	said	resignation	was
accepted	by the company	on the	very same	day.
After	submission of	resigna	tion to	the
petitioner,	respondent	has conte	nded after	few
days	that the said	resignation	was obtaine	d by
force	and contended	that the	petitioners	should
be	treated in continu	ity of the	service.	In
view	of the fact	that petiti	oners did	not
accept	the said	contention,	the	petitioner
moved	the Labour C	ourt by fil	ing a	Reference

¶15

(IDA) No. 48 of 1997 contending that

¶16

resignation has been obtained by force .

¶17

On perusal of the record, it is evident

¶18

that	only	ground		which	has	bee	n t	aken	in
support	of	the	so	called	fo	rced	resigna	tion	was
that	the resp	ondent	was	in	the	cabin	of	one	Mr.
Apte,	Personal	Officer		alone	and	said	Mr.		Apte

¶19

obtained		her resignation by for	ce. It has been
further		contended that	a circumstantial
evidence		of the case	indicate that the
respondent		who was steno-ty	pist has given hand
written		resignation, and if	it was voluntary,
then		she would have typed	out the resignation
and	w	ould not have handed	in hand written
resignation.		On the basis	of the aforesaid two
grounds		the learned Labour	Court has come to
the		conclusion that the sai	d resignation is a
forced		resignation. It has	been further stated
in t	h	e impugned order that	Mr. Apte and the
respondent		were in the cabi	n and there is an
assumption		that Mr. Apte	threatened her to

¶20

resign and hand written resignation has been

¶21

obtained.

¶22

5.		In so far a	s back-wages are concern	ed,
though		it is a	n admitted positi	on	on	record
that	the	respondent	was working	with	one	Kalpak
Develop	ment	Corpora	tion with the	sala	ry of	Rs.
4,500/-		per month.	The Labour	Court	has	held
that		it is not	proved that	responden	t no.1	was
earning		sufficiently	and theref	ore,	he	has

¶23

granted her back-wages and continuity of

¶24

service.

¶25

¶26

In my opinion, the impugned order is

¶27

totally perverse. For t	he	purpose	of
determination whether resignation	is		obtained
by force, the only evidence	which	has	been
relied upon is resignation is	han	d written	and
that the respondent no.1 was	with	the	Labour
Officer in his cabin. There	is	no	material
whatsoever produced to show	that	in fact	any
force was used by any person	and	that the	said
resignation was obtained under	any	duress	or
force. The person who is	alleging	force,	and
duress is first require to p	lead	such a	case
with all details and thereafter	the	same	is
required to be proved with	mate	rial	evidence.
The fact that the person	is st	enographer	and
still she has given hand	written	re	signation,
in my opinion does not mean	that	resignatio	n is
taken by force. The fact	that	the	petitioner
punched the card of Ms.	Cynthia	Misquitta	is
not disputed but it is only	claimed	that it	was
by mistake. I am also of	the	further	opinion
that merely because she resigne	d in	the	cabin
of Mr. Apte, Personal	Office	r, does	not
establish any force or duress	in	giving	her
resignation. Furthermore, the	findin	g of	the

¶28

gainful	empl	oyment	is als	o totally	perverse.
The	Labour	Court has	ignored	the admission	of
the	respondent,	without	giving	any	cognate
reasons,	in	respect	thereof.	There is	no
material	wha	tsoever on	record	to believe	that
resignation	was	obtained	by	force. In	my
opinion,	the	order pas	sed by	the Labour	court
is totally	perv	erse and	based	on no materia	l or
evidence.	E	ven the	finding	on the	gainful
employment	is	also bas	eless an	d contrary to	the
admission	of	the respon	dent no	.1 herein.	Thus,
in my	view	the order	passed	by the Labour	Court
being	the	order dat	ed 14th	December, 2005	is
unsustainable		in law	and acc	ordingly the	same
is q	uashed	and set	aside.	The Reference	(IDA)
No.	48 of	1997 is	dismissed.	Petition is	made

¶29

absolute accordingly. However, there shall be

¶30

no order as to costs.

¶31

[ S. U. Kamdar, J.]

Bayer Cropscience Ltd. v. Ms. Sampada S. Shetye and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bayer Cropscience Ltd. v. Ms. Sampada S. Shetye and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahabal Shetty Vs Shakil Ansari and Anr.

Mrs. Ranjana Mitchell and Anr. Vs Prabhakar B. Keni and Ors.

Roland Gandhi D'Costa Vs Ms. Maria Filomena D'Costa and Ors.

Manisha L. Shah Alias Manisha Jayesh Kesaria and 33 Ors. Vs Shree Alankar Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. and 3 Ors.

M/S.T.T.Blades and Ors. Vs the United India Fire and General Insurance Co.Ltd.

Ms. Vaishali H. Parikh Vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corpn. and 3 Ors.