D.Jothimani v. The Management,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 07.10.2021

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH W.P.Nos.32609, 25255, 25687, 25265, 25343, 24245, 23273, 23608, 23917, 25447, 25509, 22149, 21333, 32178 and 32575 of 2019 and W.M.P.Nos.24012, 22992 & 23762 in W.P.Nos.24245, 23273 & 23917 of 2019 D.Jothimani ... Petitioner in W.P.No.32609/2019 N.Vijayakumari ... Petitioner in W.P.No.25255/2019 R.Veeramuthu ... Petitioner in W.P.No.25687/2019 V.Nagammal ... Petitioner in W.P.No.25265/2019 G.Gunavathy ... Petitioner in W.P.No.25343/2019 Parimala Devi ... Petitioner in W.P.No.25447/2019 A.Arukkani ... Petitioner in W.P.No.25509/2019 R.Selvi ... Petitioner in W.P.No.24245/2019 P.Nagammal ... Petitioner in W.P.No.23273/2019 G.Parvathi ... Petitioner in W.P.No.23608/2019 T.Kanniammal ... Petitioner in W.P.No.23917/2019 T.Selvi ... Petitioner in W.P.No.22149/2019 Thulasiammal ... Petitioner in W.P.No.21333/2019 S.Ramachandran ... Petitioner in W.P.No.32178/2019 E.Padmavathy ... Petitioner in W.P.No.32575/2019 Vs.

The Management, G.Kuppusamy Naidu Memorial Hospital, P.B.No.6327, Papanayakkan Palayam, Coimbatore - 641 037.

... Respondent in all 15 W.Ps Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of certiorari to call for the records in I.D.Nos.143, 171, 168, 151, 126, 137, 154, 153, 149, 120, 150, 156, 145, 179 and 162 of 2007 dated 21.02.2018 on the file of the Additional Labour Court, Coimbatore and quash the same. For Petitioner :

Mrs.S.Sasikala (in all 15 W.Ps) For Respondents :

Mr.S.Raveendran, Senior Counsel (in all 15 W.Ps) for Mr.S.Bazeer Ahamed

C O M M O N O R D E R Since the issue arises out of a common Award, this common order is passed in these Writ Petitions.

2.All the petitioners herein are part of the workmen who had opted for the Voluntary Retirement Scheme introduced by the respondent-Hospital, pursuant to a settlement under Section 18

(1) Settlement that was arrived. All these petitioners had received compensation as full and final settlement for all their dues in lieu of this Voluntary Retirement Scheme. The Labour Court had analyzed the evidences, both oral and documentary and had come to the conclusion that these petitioners had voluntarily tendered their resignation under the Scheme and have also received the compensation and therefore, are not entitled to raise the dispute.

3.According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners herein were coerced to sign the 18(1) Settlement and to receive the full and final dues.

4.Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent would submit that under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 430 employees had opted for the same. Out of which, only 63 of them had raised disputes before the Labour Court and even among that 63, only 24 have filed Writ Petitions before this Court. The learned senior counsel would submit that since the Labour Court has rendered factual findings based on the evidences available on record, this Court should not interfere with the Award. 5.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Man Singh Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited and another reported in (2011) 14 Supreme Court Cases 662, had dealt with a similar situation, where an industrial dispute was raised by a worker after having received the compensation under a Voluntary Retirement Scheme.

While rejecting the claim made by the workman, the Hon'ble Supreme Court placed reliance on its earlier judgment in Ramesh Chandra Sankla Vs. Vikram Cement reported in (2008) 14 SCC 58 : (2009) 1 SCC (L & S) 706. The relevant portion of the judgment in Man Singh Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited and another reported in (2011) 14 Supreme Court Cases 662, reads as follows: "...

7.The workmen challenged the order of the Division Bench before this Court inter alia on the ground that having held that the management's appeals were not maintainable, the Division Bench had no jurisdiction to make the impugned direction. This Court repelled the workmen's contention and in paras 100 and 101 of the decision held and observed as follows:- (Ramesh Chandra

Sankla Case, (2008) 14 SCC 58 : (2009) 1 SCC (L & S) 706) "100. Even otherwise, according to the workmen, they were compelled to accept the amount and they received such amount under coercion and duress. In our considered opinion, they cannot retain the benefit if they want to prosecute claim petitions instituted by them with the Labour Court. Hence, the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court as to refund of amount cannot be termed unjust, inequitable or improper. Hence, even if it is held that a 'technical' contention raised by the workmen has some force, this Court which again exercises discretionary and equitable jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, will not interfere with a direction which is in consonance with the doctrine of equity.

It has been rightly said that a person 'who seeks equity must do equity'. Here the workmen claim benefits as workmen of the Company, but they do not want to part with the benefit they have received towards retirement and severance of relationship of master and servant. It simply cannot be permitted. In our judgment, therefore, the final direction issued by the Division Bench needs no interference, particularly when the Company has also approached this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.

101. For the foregoing reasons, in our opinion, the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court deserves to be confirmed and is hereby confirmed. The payment which is required to be made as per the said order should be made by the applicants intending to prosecute their claims before the Labour Court, Mandsour. In view of the fact, however, that the said period is by now over, ends of justice would be served if we extend the time so as to enable the applicants to refund the amount. We, therefore, extend the time up to 31-122008 to make such payment. We may, however, clarify that the claim petitions will not be proceeded with till such payment is made. If the payment is not made within the period stipulated above, the claim petitions of those applicants will automatically stand dismissed. The Labour Court will take up the claim petitions after 31-12-2008."

8.The present case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Ramesh Chandra Sankla [(2008)

14 SCC 58 : (2009) 1 SCC (L & S) 706]. We, thus, find no merit in the submission made on behalf of the appellant that the High Court had no jurisdiction to make a direction for refund of the entire amount received by the appellant as a condition precedent for the reference to proceed."

6.Likewise, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of V.Ramalingam Vs. Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, Chennai and another and R.Sekar Vs. Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Chennai reported in 2007 (1) L.L.N. 265, had held that when the Labour Court comes to a conclusion based on the evidences that there was no coercion on the part of the employers and that the employees had voluntarily opted for the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, the High Court would not ordinarily interfere with such factual findings.

7.The ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision are precisely the ground raised by the petitioners, which has been negatived. If the petitioners were of the view that the Management had coerced them to receive the compensation, they ought to have refunded the compensation before raising a dispute, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Man Singh's case (supra). Likewise, when the Labour Court had found that there was no coercion on the part of the Management in permitting the petitioners herein to go on voluntary retirement, I do not find any reason to interfere into such findings, which is the ratio laid down in V.Ramalingam (supra) and R.Sekar (supra). 8.In the result, there are no merits in these Writ Petitions. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar va To The Additional Labour Court, Coimbatore.

+15ccs to S.Sasikala, Advocate Sr No.52914 W.P.Nos.32609, 25255, 25687, 25265, 25343, 24245, 23273, 23608, 23917, 25447, 25509, 22149, 21333, 32178 and 32575 of 2019 and W.M.P.Nos.24012, 22992 & 23762 in W.P.Nos.24245, 23273 & 23917 of 2019 SRII (CO) PR (10/11/2021)