Smt. Shubhangi Sopanrao Bhosle Vs. A.D. Deshpande and Others - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
labour and industrial - voluntary resignation - labour court declared that since workman had resigned voluntarily so her service was rightly terminated - petitioner-workman filed petition seeking to challenge award passed by labour court - petitioner had tendered her resignation under mental stress - before regisnation come into effect petitioner withdrew it - resignation was not voluntary - labour court erred in not taking into account said facts. - maharashtra village police act (46 of 1967)sections 5, 6 & 15: [swatanter kumar, c.j., a.p. lavande & smt. vasanti a. naik, jj] powers of police patil held, section 15 clearly states the varied powers that are vested in the police patil. he is vested with the power to call and examine witnesses, record their statements and search for concealed articles. such are the powers given to the police patil under the provisions of the village police act. the powers vested in the police patil under the provisions of the village police act are relatable to the duties and functions for which the police patil is appointed. to give meaning to these powers beyond the scope of the duties would be an approach not quite permissible in law. the duties, functions and powers of the police patil under the provisions of the village police act do not vest him with the powers which are vested in police officer under the provisions of the criminal procedure code. the powers given to him under the village police act are limited in their nature and scope and are not as wide specific and consequential as the powers of a police officer under the provisions of the criminal procedure code. the police patil is to act unlike a police officer under the orders of the district magistrate and has to report the matters to him and even where he makes some inquiry or investigation, he is expected to submit report to the station officer and has not been empowered to take any further action, like preparation of a charge sheet or its presentation before the court of competent jurisdiction. he is vested with no powers in regard to the powers vested in an investigating officer under the provisions of section 173 of the criminal procedure code. the act does not contain any deeming provision which by fiction of law would term a police patil as a police officer. it could be possible that an act may specifically stipulate that a police patil for all intent and purpose shall be deemed to be a police officer under the provisions of the village police act and/or the criminal procedure code. in the absence of such a deeming fiction of law, it is difficult to confer the status of a police officer in law upon a police patil or accept the contention that the police patil is clothed with the powers and functions of a police officer. neither there is any specific provisions in the act not on principle of implied interpretation it can be said that provisions of the act suggest that the police patil is a police officer in law. his duties, functions and powers are not identical or even closely identical to the powers of a police officer under the provisions of the criminal procedure code. - by the said letter dated 15th december 1984, the petitioner informed the chairman of the canteen committee that the petitioner would like to take back her resignation dated 13th december 1984 and that she desired to work and she will make all efforts to fulfill her duties. the labour court came to the conclusion that the workman had failed to prove that her services have been terminated illegally. however, the facts clearly indicate that the petitioner was under mental stress and, therefore, she tendered her resignation on 13th december, 1984 which she withdrew before it came into force on 17th december, 1984. the labour court erred in not taking into account, the above facts.s.h. kapadia, j. 1. this writ petition is filed by the workman seeking to challenge the award passed by the ixth labour court on 13th september 1989, rejecting the reference (ida) no. 36 of 1986. in the above circumstances, the workman has filed the present petition. she claims reinstatement with back wages. 2. at the outset, it may be mentioned that the respondents and their advocate have chosen to remain absent despite notice. affidavit of service has been taken on record. 3. the facts giving rise to this writ petition, briefly, are as follows : (a) petitioner was working as a bill clerk in the b. a. r. c. hospital canteen. it is a society registered under the co-operative societies act. it provides canteen service to b. a. r. c. hospital employees. it engages 10 to 12 workmen. the said canteen is subsidised by b. a. r. c. (b) the petitioner joined the service of respondent no. 2 as a bill clerk on august 20, 1979. she was later on posted in the stores section. she was not given a letter of appointment, initially. (c) in 1980, the deputy establishment officer, canteen section issued a letter of appointment to the petitioner. the affairs of the respondent no. 2 canteen are conducted by the managing committee. the managing committee consists of the chairman, the honorary secretary, the treasurer and other members. the b. a. r. c. nominates the chairman and one of the members of the managing committee. (d) during the relevant period, the petitioner was incharge of issuing coupons to the employees who avail of the canteen facilities. in january 1984, the petitioner was posted in the stores section. she worked in the stores between january 1984 and december 1984. the petitioner made certain demands for higher scale of wages in 1984. she was not paid wages as claimed by her. no increment was given. she, therefore, approached respondent no. 2 from time to time claiming increments and higher wages. in 1984 november she discovered that there were some vouchers which were not in the handwriting of the petitioner, but were fabricated. the petitioner drew the attention of the honorary secretary who conceded that the said vouchers were written by him. it is the case of the petitioners that in view of the said investigation made by her, the honorary secretary got disturbed and became angry towards the petitioner and thereafter, she was continuously harassed. she was not even allowed to talk with anybody. she was harassed by the honorary secretary and due to the consistent harassment she, in a state of distress, tendered resignation on thursday, the 13th december 1984, particularly because on that day, the honorary secretary publicly scolded the petitioner in front of others and she was deeply hurt. in a fit of mental distress and anger, she wrote letter of resignation dated 13th december 1984. as per the said letter, the resignation was to take effect from 16th december 1984. at this stage it may be mentioned that the said letter of resignation is ex-a to the petition. as per the said exhibit, it is mentioned that the resignation will come into force from monday 16th december 1984. at this stage it may be mentioned as a matter of fact that monday was 17th december and not 16th december 1984. this position is also duly established as per the award, which is impugned in the present case. (e) the said resignation was accepted by the secretary on 15th december 1984. according to the petitioner, 15th december was a saturday. she had written the resignation on thursday 13th december 1984. in any event, the resignation was to come into force from monday i.e. 17th december 1984. it is a case of the petitioner that on saturday 15th december 1984 infact she had gone to the office of the committee and she had taken alongwith her letter dated 15th december 1984 which is exhibit-b to the petition. by the said letter dated 15th december 1984, the petitioner informed the chairman of the canteen committee that the petitioner would like to take back her resignation dated 13th december 1984 and that she desired to work and she will make all efforts to fulfill her duties. she also requested the chairman to treat her in service. the endorsement is made on exhibit-b which is a letter dated 15th december 1984 which shows that the said letter, in any event, was received by the chairman on 17th december 1984. 17th december 1984 was monday, as stated hereinabove. it is the case of the petitioner that she took the letter on 15th december 1984, but the chairman had asked her to come on monday, particularly because saturday was not a working day in the office and, therefore, ultimately the letter dated 15th december 1984 came to be accepted on 17th december 1984. (f) ultimately, the management proceeded on the basis that since the resignation letter was accepted on 15th december 1984, the resignation came into force from that very day and, therefore, the services of the petitioner came to be terminated. (g) being aggrieved by the said termination on the ground that the petitioner had resigned, the petitioner sought a reference to the labour court by way of reference (ida) no. 36 of 1986. detailed evidence was led by the parties. the labour court came to the conclusion that the workman had failed to prove that her services have been terminated illegally. the labour court found that since the workman had resigned voluntarily, her services have been rightly terminated. the labour court came to the conclusion that there was no merit in the contention of the workman that she was continuously harassed by the honorary secretary of the society. the labour court found that in her letter of resignation dated 13th december 1984 she had expressed desire to resign. she written her resignation duly addressed to the honorary secretary. the labour court found that on 15th december, 1984 mr. sawant had told the workman that he had accepted her resignation and in the above circumstances, the labour court found that the resignation was duly accepted. the labour court found that her subsequent letter dated 15th december 1984 addressed to the chairman withdrawing the resignation cannot be taken into account because the resignation was accepted on 15th december 1984 by the honorary secretary. the labour court found that earlier also a resignation letter was given by her on 8th december, 1984. the labour court also found that the letter dated 15th december 1984 was taken by the petitioner to the chairman on 15th december, 1984 and the chairman had asked the petitioner to see him on monday i.e. 17th december, 1984. the labour court also found that even earlier, the workmen had resigned and the committee had asked her to withdraw her resignation and to improve her work. the labour court also found that the managing committee was right in not permitting the workman to withdraw the resignation on 17th december, 1984. in the above circumstances, the labour court came to the conclusion that the workman could not be believed that she had written a letter of resignation on 13th december, 1984; that the honorary secretary had snatched the letter and that her withdrawal letter subsequently, has no force because the resignation was duly accepted on 15th december, 1984. the labour court also found that the resignation was voluntary and there was no substance in her allegation that the resignation was taken from her under coercion. in the above circumstances, the reference came to be dismissed. being aggrieved by the rejection of the reference, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. mrs. d'souza, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the letter of resignation dated 13th december, 1984 was addressed by the petitioner because she was continuously harassed by mr. sawant, the honorary secretary. she further submitted that even earlier she had tendered her resignation which is indicative of the fact that she was under mental pressure. she also pointed out that 13th december, 1984 was a thursday. on account of mental pressure she said in the letter that she will not attend duty on and from monday 16th december, 1984 (it should be 17th december, 1984). this letter was accepted on 15th december, 1984 which was a saturday. - nonetheless, it is clear as rightly submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the resignation was to come into force from monday i.e. 17th december, 1984. in the above circumstances, it is contended that the petitioner was entitled to withdraw the resignation on saturday 15th december, 1984 which she did. she also submitted that in the present case, no enquiry was made by the employer with regard to the alleged misconduct or even with regard to the fact as to whether the resignation was voluntary or under coercion. in the present case, the labour court erred in rejecting the contention of the petitioner that she had withdrawn her resignation before the resignation came into force; that she was under mental stress on account of her being harassed over the period of time and that finally her withdrawal was effective on and from 15th december, 1984, particularly because she had gone to the chairman with the letter of withdrawal (exhibit-b) dated 15th december, 1984 which was a saturday and the chairman had asked her to come and see him with the letter on monday i.e. 17th december, 1984. 5. i find considerable merit in the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. the facts, as they stand, without going into the detailed controversy, themselves indicate that the letter of resignation was dated 13th december, 1984. it was to come into force from monday i.e., 17th december, 1984. before that date, the petitioner had written a letter on 15th december, 1984. 15th december, 1984 was a saturday. even the findings of the labour court indicate that the petitioner has proved that she had gone to see the chairman on 15th december itself and the chairman had asked her to come on the next following working day i.e. on monday i.e. 17th december, 1984. in any event, the petitioner had withdrawn the letter of resignation before 17th december, 1984 and in the circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner had resigned and that her resignation could not have been withdrawn on 17th december, 1984. the fact of the case also show that the petitioner had also tendered her resignation earlier on 8th december 1984. the petitioner had raised the demand for increment. the petitioner had also detected some serious mistakes and in the above circumstances, there is reason to believe that the petitioner had given her resignation under mental stress. for the above reasons, it cannot be said that the resignation tendered by the petitioner was a voluntary resignation. i am not going to the extent of saying that the resignation was tendered under coercion. however, the facts clearly indicate that the petitioner was under mental stress and, therefore, she tendered her resignation on 13th december, 1984 which she withdrew before it came into force on 17th december, 1984. the labour court erred in not taking into account, the above facts. 6. for the foregoing reasons, rule is made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b) with costs. 7. certified copy expedited.