N.Rajendran v. The Presiding Officer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 26.04.2021 PRONOUNCED ON : 12.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM W.A.No.656 of 2016 and C.M.P.No.8450 of 2016 N.Rajendran ... Appellant/2nd Respondent -vs1. The Presiding Officer, 1st Additional Labour Court, Chennai-600 104 2.Sorrento Homes Rep. by its Partner Y.P.Ravi, No.43/11, 3rd floor, 3rd Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai-20 ... Respondents Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 28.01.2016 passed in W.P.No.10168 of 2011 by a learned Single Judge of this Court insofar as rejecting the claim of Rs.16,02,000/- granted by the learned Labour Court, Chennai in C.P.No.337 of 2007 to the appellant. Prayer in W.P.No.10168 of 2011:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari Mandamus to call for the records in CP No. 337/2007 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the award dt 25.2.2011.
For Appellant : Mr.N.G.R.Prasad For R1 : Labour Court For R2 :Mr.J.R.Jayant for S.J.Jagadev
JUDGMENT
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
This Writ Appeal has been preferred against the order dated 28.01.2016 passed in W.P.No.10168 of 2011 by a learned Single Judge of this Court, thereby rejecting the appellant's claim for Rs.16,02,000/- granted by the learned Labour Court in C.P.No.337 of 2007 on 25.02.2011.
2.The fact of the case is that the appellant Rajendiran was working under the second respondent/employer herein namely ''Sorrento Home''. He was an Account-incharge since the year 1994; and initially, paid a monthly salary at Rs.5000/- vide salary certificate Ex.P1. From 01.01.2000, the appellant was promised a salary of Rs.12,000/- per month. But, actually, cash payment of Rs.5000/- alone was paid per month. Further, he was promised to pay the difference of Rs.7000/- per month but the same was not paid. When the appellant insisted the payment of his arrears, the 2nd respondent/employer on 21.07.2006 gave an Undertaking Letter Ex.P.3 to pay the arrears of salary Rs.7000/- and also promised to pay Rs.10,00,000/-in case the petitioner resigns his job or he was dismissed from service.
In the meanwhile, due to the misunderstanding between the 2nd respondent/employer and his brother Raghu, the appellant stopped to attend the work and then filed the claim petition in C.P.No.337 of 2007 before the learned Labour Court, Chennai thereby claiming a sum of Rs.16,02,000/- towards arrears of salary and compensation. The 2nd respondent/employer filed counter and contested the claim. The learned Labour Judge after considering the oral and documentary evidence, awarded a sum of Rs.16,02,000/- to the appellant by order dated 25.02.2011. Aggrieved by this order of the learned Labour Court, the 2nd respondent/employer herein filed the Writ Petition in W.P.No.10168 of 2011. The learned Single Judge, after considering the arguments of the counsel for the parties and based on records held that the Undertaking Letter Ex.P.3 dated 21.07.
2006 was not genuine and a fabricated document and allowed the Writ Petition and thereby quashed the impugned order passed in C.P.No.337 of 2007 dated 25.02.2011 by the learned Labour Court. Any how the appellant was permitted to withdraw Rs.4,00,000/- which was deposited pursuant to the interim orders granted by the learned Single Judge on 26.07.2013. 3.Now the appellant challenges the correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.10168 of 2011 dated 28.01.2016.
4.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that Ex.P.3 dated 21.07.2006 was not genuine for the reason that the letter head containing telephone number has six digits whereas from the year 2006 seven digit telephone number has come into force. Further,
learned counsel contended that the 2nd respondent/employer is also partnership firm, it has many projects and ''Sorrento Guest House'' is also one among them. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the Undertaking Letter Ex.P.3 is not connected with the 2nd respondent/employer. Further, the 2nd respondent/ employer did not come into witness box to disprove the disputed document Ex.P.3. Therefore, the learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the order of the learned Labour Court which was based on oral and documentary evidence. The appellant is entitled to receive Rs.16,02,000/- as ordered by the learned Labour Court, Chennai. Hence, prayed this Court to allow the present appeal.
5.Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/employer supporting the order of the learned Single Judge contended that the appellant is not entitled to the amount claimed in his claim petition. The claim petition was allowed based on the alleged Undertaking Letter dated 21.07.2006, Ex.P.3 which was not a genuine but a forged one fabricated for the purpose of the claim, which was not proved by acceptable evidence by the appellant before the learned Labour Court. The learned Labour Court without considering the genuineness of the Undertaking Letter Ex.P.3 allowed the claim. The learned Single Judge based on Ex.P.3 and other documents rightly held that Ex.P.3 was a fabricated document and the claim based on the said document is unsustainable. There is no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge and thus pleaded to dismiss the appeal.
6.Heard Mr.N.G.R.Prasad learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.S.J.Javadev learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and perused the materials available on record. 7.Admittedly, the appellant viz.,Rajendiran was working under the 2nd respondent/employer (''Sorrento Guest Home'') as Account-in-charge from the year 1994 and initially, he was paid a monthly salary of Rs.5000/-. It is also evident from Ex.P.1 Salary Certificate and this fact is not disputed. Further the appellant did not work from 01.03.2007 which is evident from the lawyer notice Ex.P.5 issued on behalf of the appellant and Reply notice Ex.P.6 issued by the 2nd respondent/employer. According to the appellant, he was abruptly stopped from attending work and dismissed from service as stated in the lawyer notice Ex.P.5 but in the claim petition para No.
5 he had stated that the 2nd respondent/ employer insisted the appellant to continue his employment and do his duties as Account clerk. But, due to the misunderstanding between the 2nd respondent/employer and his brother one Raghu, the appellant was not attending work from 01.03.2007. As per the claim petition complainant impliedly admitted that he was not terminated from the service by the 2nd respondent/employer.
the learned Single Judge in the order in para No.6 since he was not terminated from service, he cannot claim any compensation payable under Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act. 8.On the basis of the Undertaking Letter Ex.P.3 dated 21.07.2006 the appellant claimed arrears of salary and compensation. According to the appellant, Undertaking Letter Ex.P.3 is a deemed settlement given by the employer, so it has to be proved by the appellant before the learned Labour Court. But a xerox copy of the Undertaking Letter Ex.P.3 alone was filed. Admittedly, the 2nd respondent/employer did not let any oral evidence but objected the alleged Undertaking Letter Ex.P.3 dated 21.07.2006 as a forged document that the claim is unsustainable. The alleged letter of undertaking Ex.P.
3, was typed in the letter pad namely ''Sorrento Guest House'' according to the 2nd respondent/employer ''Sorrento Guest House'' was leased to one Mr.Krishna prasad on 15.11.2000 which was evidenced by Ex.P.23. On a perusal of lawyer notice Ex.P.5 dated 28.05.2007 issued on behalf of the appellant and Reply notice Ex.P.6 given by the 2nd respondent/employer, it is found that the alleged Undertaking Letter Ex.P.3 dated 21.07.2006 was not mentioned but it was emerged during the claim petition before the labour Court, then the learned Labour Court should have endeavored to ascertain the genuineness of letter of undertaking Ex.P.3 but failed. The Undertaking Letter Ex.P.
''Since he is insisting his arrears of enhanced salary at Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand) per month from 01.01.2000, I, on behalf of myself and on behalf of our firms/ concerns promise and under take to pay his arrears of salary at Rs.7,000/-(Rupees Seven Thousand) per month from 01.01.2000. Further on demitting his job in our firms/concerns either at his instance or at our instance, I promise and undertake to pay him Rupees Ten Lakhs as his terminal service compensation''
9.It seems that the employer undertakes to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as terminal service compensation of demitting his job either at his instance or at our instance (employer). No prudent employer will give such Undertaking Letter to pay employee Rs.10,00,000/- towards terminal service compensation. There was no discussion in the order of the Labour Court on this aspect, as to whether Ex.P.3 is true. The learned Labour Court failed to consider the admissibility of the document produced by the appellant. Therefore, the learned Single Judge considering the materials placed on record found that the alleged document Ex.P.3 is not a genuine one, but a forged document. Now in the absence of any evidence to prove the genuineness of Ex.P.3, it appears that there was an apparent
error committed by the learned Labour Court in accepting the same, therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly interfered with the findings of the labour Court, hence, we find no sufficient reason to allow the present appeal. In the result, this Writ Appeal Stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar vsn To The Presiding Officer, 1st Additional Labour Court, Chennai-600 104 +1cc to M/s.Raw and Reddy, Advocate SR.No. 32477 +1cc to Mr.S.J.Jagadev , Advocate SR.No. 32490 W.A.No.656 of 2016 and C.M.P.No.8450 of 2016 VG II(CO) A.SK(03.08.2021)