The Management of Festo India Private Limited Vs Sri. Chandraiah

THE MANAGEMENT OF FESTO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, PLOT NO.237B, BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BENGALURU - HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 099 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI.PRASHANTH.B.R., ADVOCATE FOR

¶12

SRI.SUDHAKAR.B., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI. CHANDRAIAH, Digitally signed S/O SALLAPPA, by THEJAS KUMAR N AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, Location: HIGH R/AT NO.92, MASTRIPALYA, COURT OFKARNATAKA 4^TH 'B' BLOCK, 16^TH MAIN, KORAMANGALA, BEHIND CANARA BANK, BENGALURU - 560 034.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI.KUMARA.K.G., ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:45408 WP No. 51027 of 2019

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Sri.Prashanth.B.R., counsel on behalf of Sri.Sudhakar.B., for the petitioner and Sri.Kumara.K.G., counsel for the respondent, have appeared in person.

¶24

2. The petition averments are stated as under:

¶25

The Festo India Private Limited is a leading worldwide supplier of automation technology and the performance leader in industrial training and educational programs. The respondent was appointed in the Store Department on probation in terms of the appointment letter dated 25.02.1994 and was confirmed on 08.08.1994. After serving nineteen years, citing ill-health resigned on 08.01.2013, and requested the management to accept the resignation with immediate effect. The Management accepted the resignation and also paid an amount of Rs.1,90,818/- vide Cheque No.753765 dated 22.01.2013 towards gratuity, and the same was sent along with a letter dated 24.01.2013, which was accepted and encashed by the respondent without any protest.

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:45408 WP No. 51027 of 2019

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

It is stated that after a lapse of almost ten months, the respondent issued a legal notice alleging illegal termination and calling upon the company to reinstate him and pay arrears of salary, etc., which was duly replied to by the petitioner by denying the same. Thereafter, in 2015, the respondent approached the Assistant Labor Commissioner and Conciliation Officer for conciliation, and the proceedings failed. The State Government referred the points of dispute to the Labor Court for adjudication by order dated 22.01.2015. The Labor Court vide award dated 30.03.2019 allowed the reference in part. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of Writ Petition.

¶30

Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions.

¶31

Placing reliance on the evidence of WW2, counsel Sri.Kumara.K.G., contends that the management is in the habit of taking forceful resignations from its workmen. He argued by saying that the respondent is illiterate and was misled by management into signing a resignation letter when he intended

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:45408 WP No. 51027 of 2019

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

to submit a leave application. Counsel vehemently contended that the witness for the management, rather than denying the facts, claimed a lack of knowledge, repeatedly stating, 'I do not know.’

¶35

Counsel Sri.Prashanth.B.R., for the management, submits that the company claims the employee resigned voluntarily. Counsel, therefore, submits that the Writ Petition may be allowed.

¶36

Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers and the records with care.

¶37

This is an interesting case because, while the company claims the employee resigned voluntarily, the employee argues he is illiterate; that the management tricked him into signing a resignation letter instead of a leave application. This case involves an employee who ostensibly resigned voluntarily but contends that he is illiterate and was misled by the management into signing a resignation letter when he intended to submit a leave application. The situation presents a claim of involuntary resignation despite the employee having tendered a voluntary resignation.

¶38

5 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:45408 WP No. 51027 of 2019

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Suffice it to note that, Sri.Chandraiah - the respondent remained absent unauthorizedly without taking permission from the management from 12.11.2012 to 16.11.2012. Taking note of the absence, the Management issued a Communication to him on 20.11.2012 and apprised him about his unauthorized absence and also warned him that if he remains absent unauthorizedly in future, disciplinary action will be taken against him. The respondent understood and accepted that failure to improve attendance could result in future disciplinary measures. Owing to ill health, he voluntarily resigned from his post on 08.01.2013. Ex.M.6 is the resignation letter, and a careful perusal of the same reflects that the respondent made a personal decision to resign due to health challenges, and the decision was entirely his own. Furthermore, the management accepted resignation and paid Rs.30,083/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand and Eighty Three only) towards the final settlement of his accounts. Ex.M.7 is the receipt wherein the respondent acknowledges the receipt of Rs.30,083/- towards the final settlement of his accounts. The Management, vide Cheque bearing No.753765 dated 22.01.2013, sent a gratuity amount of Rs.1,90,818/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety Thousand Eight

¶42

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:45408 WP No. 51027 of 2019

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Hundred and Eighteen only), which was encashed by the respondent without protest. Whether the management witness denies the facts or claims ignorance, it is immaterial to the determination of the facts in issue.

¶45

The evidence firmly establishes/ indicates that the act was voluntary and the respondent’s departure was a voluntary act on his part, motivated solely by the need to address his ill health. Therefore, I conclude that the resignation was not a forced action but a personal choice made because of his health condition. I may venture to say that the Labour Court has failed to have regard to relevant consideration and disregarded relevant matters. For the reasons stated above, the award of the Labour Court is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, it is set-aside.

¶46

A Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The award dated 30.03.2019 passed by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in Reference No.04/2015 vide Annexure-A is quashed.

¶47