Dismissed

Dr. (Mr.) C. Madhusoodan, v. Steel Authority of India Limited

Karnataka HC21 Jun 2012WA/3474/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal challenged the Single Judge's dismissal of a petition seeking to treat an appellant's resignation as a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) entry and grant retirement benefits. The High Court held the appellant was ineligible for VRS as his post was essential, the resignation was unconditional, and the lower judge acted correctly.

What did the court decide?

null

Dr. (Mr.) C. Madhusoodan, Vs Steel… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2012

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO

¶8

W.A. No.3474/2011 (S-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN :

¶10

DR. (MR.) C. MADHUSOODAN, S/O SRI NARAYANACHAR AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS FORMERLY WORKING AS SENIOR CONSULTANT IN ANAESTHESIOLOGY VISP HOSPITAL, BHADARVATHI, SHIMOGA DISTRICT AND PRESENTLY R/AT NO. 205, II MAIN, MAHALAXMI LAYOUT BANGALORE – 560 086. ...APPELLANT

¶11

( By Sri. SUBBA RAO, SR. ADV. FOR M/S SUBBARAO & CO, ADVS.)

¶12

AND :

¶13

1 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN REGISTERED OFFICE AT ISPAT BHAWAN, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI

¶14

2 THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR VISVESWARAYA IRON AND STEEL PLANT BHADARVATHI 577301 SHIMOGA 577301 ...RESPONDENTS

¶15

( By Sri. S.N. MURTHY, SR. ADV. FOR M/S. S N MURTHY ASSOCIATES )

¶16

¶17

This writ appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 23^rd February 2011 made in W.P. No. 16022/2007 and allow the writ appeal.

¶18

This writ appeal coming on for preliminary hearing this day, K.L.MANJUNATH. J., delivered the following :

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 16022/2007 dated 23^rd February 2011 is called in question in this appeal.

¶21

Heard Sri. Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. S.N. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶22

The facts of this appeal are as hereunder :

¶23

The appellant joined the services as Medical Officer at Visvesvaraya Iron and Steel Plant Hospital, Bhadravathi. He was promoted on three occasions. Ultimately, he was working as a Senior Consultant in Anesthesiology and in which post he was working as on 2007. The respondent introduced Voluntary Retirement Scheme in the year 2001 and the same was extended from time to time. The appellant applied for VRS scheme on 04.12.2006. The request of the appellant for voluntary retirement was rejected as per Annexure 'C' dated

¶24

- 3 -

¶25

23.12.2006. Thereafter, the appellant did not attend to work and leave was not sanctioned to him. The request made by the respondent to join for duty was ended in vain. Ultimately, as per Annexure 'H' dated 15.03.2007 the appellant submitted his resignation owing to his personal problems and requested the respondents to treat the aforesaid notice as three months' notice as per the Rules of the Company. He also requested the Company to relieve from the duties after working hours of 15^th June 2007 and requested the respondent – Management to settle his EL. As per Annexure 'J' dated 09.05.2007 his resignation was accepted and he was relieved from the duty.

¶26

Before receipt of the relieving order dated 09.05.2007 the appellant had got issued legal notice as per Annexure 'L' dated 28.04.2007 stating that he was entitled for retirement under VRS Scheme. The same was not granted to him without any reason or rhyme. In the circumstances, he had sent resignation and therefore, he requested to consider his resignation as VRS application and to give all benefits payable to him under the scheme and if the benefits as per the VRS scheme is not given to him, he will proceed against the Management to recover the claims.

¶27

Contending that the acceptance of resignation letter by the

¶28

¶29

Management as per the order dated 09.05.2007 and not granting of the benefits under VRS scheme, a writ petition was filed to quash Annexure 'C' dated 23.12.2006 wherein the request of the appellant to permit him to retire from the services under the VRS scheme and to quash the acceptance of the resignation letter dated 09.05.2007 and also relieving order dated 15.06.2007 and further direct the respondents to declare that he has been retired under the VRS scheme and that he is entitled for all benefits.

¶30

The writ petition was contested by the respondents on the ground that VRS scheme was introduced in 2001 with a specific purpose. According to the respondents, Voluntary Retirement Scheme was introduced with a focus on optimization of manpower for effective utilization of human resources. The VRS : 2006-07 was introduced in VISL on 22.11.2006. A corrigendum dated 25.11.2006 was issued to the same. Thus Voluntary Retirement Scheme was in operation in the respondent Company intermittently in different spells of time. The main thrust for introducing VR Scheme was for the following reasons:

¶31

i) Employees working in departments/units which were being phased out/closed/likely to be phased out/facing technological obsolescence;

¶32

ii) Department/units which were progressively becoming

¶33

¶34

economically unviable;

¶35

iii) Non-works area;

¶36

iv) Employees having actual attendance less than 240 days in a year;

¶37

v) Employees who are under-performers due to medical reasons/physical unfitness/other reasons;

¶38

vi) Employees having qualification below metric level and having no special skills, etc.;

¶39

vii) Besides, the priority/preference followed while granting VR was employees having poor health/attendance, higher age group employees, difficult to retrain and non-deployable and employees with no specialized skills.

¶40

However, the employees in certain key categories were discouraged from opting Voluntary Retirement including the employees having professional qualification such as Chartered Accountant / ICWA / Company Secretary, Specialist Medical Personnel, etc.

¶41

and it was also contended any application filed under VRS scheme has to be considered by the respondents pursuant to the guidelines issued by the Steel Authority of India Limited dated 14/22^nd November 2006 as per Annexure R-6 and as per the guidelines the appellant was not entitled to apply for VRS scheme since the respondent was required to recruit another Anesthesiologist in case the appellant's case is granted under VRS scheme. Therefore, it was contended that the VRS

¶42

¶43

application filed by the appellant under VRS scheme was rightly rejected and the scheme was not applicable to him and that there was no coercion or inducement in compelling the appellant to submit resignation letter and that the appellant is not entitled for any other reliefs.

¶44

The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties noticed that the respondent – Employer is still willing to take the appellant into service and the appellant himself is not willing to work under the respondent and further came to the conclusion that the acceptance of resignation letter is just and proper and does not calls for any interference. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Challenging the legality and correctness of the order of the learned Single Judge, the present appeal is filed.

¶45

During the course of arguments Mr. Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has raised the following contentions:

¶46

According to him, the rejection of the application filed by the appellant under VRS scheme as per Annexure 'C' dated 22.12.2006 is bad in law. The resignation letter sent by the appellant on 18.03.2007 was on account of coercion and that he was under depression and also

¶47

¶48

under medical treatment and he further contends that the acceptance of the resignation letter by the respondent on 09.05.2007 is contrary to the demand made by the appellant as per the legal notice dated 28.04.2007. He further contends that the learned Single Judge did not consider the judgment of this Court in K.M. JAYAPRAKASH VS. THE BHARAT ELECTRONICS LTD. wherein in a similar circumstances had been granted relief. He also relied upon the judgment of this Court in B.C. SHIVANNE GOWD AND OTHERS VS. THE HINDUSTAN PAPER CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS (ILR 2003 KAR 2869).

¶49

10. Mr. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents contends that none of the grounds urged by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant are tenable because the VRS scheme has been introduced with a specific purpose and the respondent was bound to consider the guidelines issued by the Steel Authority of India before accepting the application filed by any Officer or employee under VRS scheme. Considering that, if the appellant was working as Anesthesiologist if his application for VRS scheme had been accepted, again another Anesthesiologist was required to be recruitted. In such an event, the benefit that has been given to the appellant would go waste as

¶50

¶51

the very purpose of VRS scheme was to reduce the manpower and to run an industry feasibly. He further submits that the guidelines of the present case was not there in the case of K.M. Jayaprakash Vs. BEL and that there Lordship had no occasion to consider the guidelines issued by the Steel Authority of India and therefore, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the aforesaid judgment cannot be made applicable. He further submits that even the judgment in B.C. Shivanne Gowd and others Vs. The Hindustan Paper Corporation Limited and others has no application to the facts of this case, because in the instant case the resignation letter was submitted by the appellant on 18.03.2007 and the same was accepted on 09.05.2007 since it was unconditional resignation letter sent by the appellant and even if the Court consider the legal notice dated 28.04.2007 the appellant never demanded through the said legal notice that his resignation letter sent on 18.03.2007 shall not be accepted if his case is not considered under VRS scheme. He further submits that though his application filed under VRS scheme was rejected on 04.12.2006 on the ground that VRS scheme has no application to his case by order dated 04.12.2006. When the appellant had submitted his resignation letter voluntarily cannot demand the respondent to give all benefits

¶52

¶53

under VRS scheme. Therefore, he requests the Court to dismiss the appeal.

¶54

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, what is to be considered by us in this appeal is 'whether any error committed by the learned Single Judge to interfere with the order in an intra-court appeal' ?.

¶55

It is not in dispute that the scope of the appeal is an intracourt appeal is very very limited. Therefore, what is to be considered by us is 'Whether any error is committed by the learned Single Judge or not'? It is not in dispute that the appellant who joined the services of the respondent as a Medical Officer in the year 1982 and secured promotions and was working as Senior Consultant in Anesthesiology. The VRS scheme was introduced in the year 2001 in order to avoid the object which we have culled out in the preceding paragraphs. The VRS scheme can be considered by the respondents if an employee fulfill the terms and conditions of the scheme and if he comes under the guidelines issued by the Steel Authority of India.

¶56

On a perusal of the guidelines of VRS scheme and the guidelines issued by the Steel Authority of India, the scheme is not applicable to the appellant since he was working in an essential

¶57

- 10 -

¶58

department as Anesthesiologist and which post cannot be forgo by the respondent and the said post has to be again filled up by the respondent. When the VRS scheme is brought only to reduce the manpower and when the scheme is not intended to give benefit to the existing employees and recruit fresh employees, the question of considering the application of the appellant under VRS scheme does not arise at all. Therefore, the order passed by the respondent as per Annexure 'C' dated 23.12.2006 cannot be find fault with by this Court.

¶59

After rejection of his application filed under VRS scheme, the appellant failed to attend to the duty and he was an unauthorised absentee. The records produced by the respondent reveal that several requests were made requesting the appellant to report for duty, but he has failed to do so and thereafter he has sent resignation letter on 18.03.2007 unconditionally, which has been accepted on 09.05.2007. Though the legal notice was got issued by the appellant on 28.04.2007 there is no demand in the notice that the resignation letter sent on 18.03.2007 shall not be accepted. The demand in the legal notice is to settle his claims under VRS scheme and notice further demands that if the amount is not settled, the appellant would sue the respondent for his redressal.

¶60

11 -

¶61

We could have accepted the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel Sri. Subba Rao, provided in the legal notice dated 28.04.2007, if a request was made not to consider his resignation letter dated 18.03.2007. Therefore, the contention of Mr. Subba Rao that acceptance of the resignation letter by the respondent on 09.05.2007 is illegal cannot be accepted.

¶62

As a matter of fact, the learned Single Judge made an attempt to settle the dispute provided the appellant was willing to join for duty and the respondent was willing to take him on duty. But the appellant has refused to do so. A similar attempt was also made by this Court, the same was also ended in vain.

¶63

Now, on the facts of this case, we have to see whether the judgments relied upon by Mr. Subba Rao are applicable or not. As rightly pointed out by Mr. S.N. Murthy, the judgment in K.M. Jayaprakash Vs. BEL has no application to the facts of this case because the guidelines issued by the Steel Authority in the instant case was not there in the matter of BEL. Even if such guidelines were there in BEL case, the fact of such guidelines has not been considered by the Hon'ble Court and that there was no occasion for the learned Judges to consider the guidelines since such a point was not canvassed.

¶64