Termination Of Services Of Illiterate Lady Violates Sec. 25-F Of Act As Management Failed To Prove Credibility Of Resignation Letter: P&H HC

The Petitioner-Management challenged the award passed by the Labour Court which held that the termination of services of a Work lady-Respondent by the Petitioner-Management was illegal and arbitrary and ordered the management to reinstate her in service with continuity of service along with 50% back wages.

The Bench of Justice Sanjay Vashisth observed, “Moreover, the documents appended by the Management with the present writ petition as well as led in evidence have not been proved by the Management by producing the required witnesses. Once, a plea of resignation is taken by the Management, it requires to be proved strictly. Thus, being not satisfied with the plea taken in defence by the Management, there is no reason for this Court to doubt the view taken by the learned Labour Court and interfere with its findings. Therefore, this Court maintains that the termination of the services of the worklady is in violation of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947, and hence illegal.”

Advocate Suverna Mutneja appeared for the Petitioner whereas Advocate Ram Pal Verma appeared for the Respondents.

The Court said that “On examination of the pleadings raised in the writ petition, reasons assigned in the impugned award and the arguments addressed by the parties before this Court, conduct of the petitioner- Company(Management) does not inspire confidence because for the proving of the resignation letter and its acceptance, no witness has been examined. Worklady seems to be absolutely illiterate. From no stretch of imagination, it can be assumed that she was having perfect knowledge of any language i.e. Hindi or English. Thus, there is no question of her knowing the contents of the resignation letter, its acceptance and columns filled in the voucher at the instance of the Management.”

However, the Management submitted that the reinstatement of the work lady with continuity in service would not be possible because the company itself had closed down much earlier.

The Court directed, “However, it is made clear that in case, Management is not in a position to take back worklady in service for any reason and opts to pay one time lump sum amount of compensation as already observed i.e. amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lacs), the said amount shall be paid to the worklady within a period of three months from today i.e. on or before 24.07.2024. It is further clarified that in case, the said awarded amount is not paid within the stipulated time, interest @ 6% interest would be applicable from 24.07.2024.”

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

Cause Title: M/s Creative Edge Men’s Wear Pvt. Ltd. v. The Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court and Anr. (Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:055146)

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocate Suverna Mutneja

Respondents: Advocate Ram Pal Verma

Click here to read/download the Judgment