JUDGMENT
K.K. Sasidharan, J.
1. These writ appeals are directed against the common order dated 30.03.2005 in W.P. Nos. 37216/2002, 23465/2003 and 9562/1999, whereby the learned Single Judge set aside the Award dated 11.04.2002 in I.D. No. 340/1996 and confirmed the Award dated 11.05.1998 and 14.08.1995 in I.D. Nos. 338/1994 and 874/1990 respectively on the file of the Labour Court, Chennai.
2. In W.A. No. 299 of 2006, pertaining to I.D. No. 338/1994 which was challenged in W.P. No. 23465/2003, the appellant challenged the non-employment in ‘Dina Thanthi’ with effect from 10.06.1981.
3. In W.A. No. 298 of 2006, with respect to I.D. No. 340/1996 which was challenged in W.P. No. 37216 of 2002, the grievance of the appellant relates to non-employment in ‘Varanthara Rani’ (Rani Weekly) from 01.07.1984.
4. In W.A. No. 300 of 2006, the order under challenge is the Award in I.D. No. 874/1990 which was challenged in W.P. No. 9562 of 1999 and the matter relates to non-employment in ‘Rani Comics’ from 16.03.1988.
5. The factual back ground necessary for deciding the writ appeals are as below:
The appellant joined the service in ‘Daily Thanthi’ in the year 1962 and he was employed there till 09.06.1981 and subsequently he was working with ‘Rani Weekly’. It is his further contention that from 01.07.1984 to 15.03.1988, he was working with ‘Rani Comics’. His services were utilised by ‘Rani Weekly’ between the period 10.06.1981 and 30.06.1984. It is also the contention of the appellant that he was made to resign on 15.03.1988 and subsequently he raised a dispute against the Management of ‘Rani Comics’ which was taken on file in I.D. No. 874/1990 by the First Additional Labour Court, Madras and it was ultimately dismissed. The appellant also raised a dispute against ‘Rani Weekly’ (Varanthara Rani) challenging his termination order dated 01.07.1984 and the said dispute, which was raised long after the order of termination, was the subject matter in I.D. No. 340/1996 and the same was allowed in his favour, whereby he was directed to be reinstated with full back wages calculated from 15.03.1988 and with continuity of service and all attendant benefits thereof.
6. The appellant raised another dispute challenging the termination in ‘Daily Thanthi’ on 10.06.1981 in I.D. No. 338/1994 and the said dispute was also decided against him.
7. The Award in I.D. Nos. 874/1990 and 338/1994 was challenged by the appellant by way of two writ petitions whereas the Award in I.D. No. 340/1996 was challenged by the Management.
8. The learned Single Judge considered the Award in all the three matters together and, having found that the appellant has resigned the job voluntarily and obtained the benefits consequent to his resignation in full and final satisfaction of the claim and also encashed the cheque, rejected the claim of the appellant and it is the said common order which is impugned in the three writ appeals referred to above.
9. We have heard the appellant in person and Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Management.
10. The appellant in I.D. No. 340/1996 agitated his non-employment in ‘Varanthara Rani’ (Rani Weekly) with effect from 01.07.1984. The said I.D. was decided in favour of the appellant and the findings of the Labour Court was challenged by the respondent Management and ultimately the contention of the Management was accepted by the learned Single Judge inasmuch as the issue raised in I.D. No. 340/1996 has already been decided in I.D. No. 874/1990 as per Award dated 14.08.1995 against the appellant.
11. Even though the contention of the appellant in I.D. No. 340/1996 pertains to his non-employment in ‘Varanthara Rani’ (Rani Weekly) from 01.07.1984, his contention in I.D. No. 874/1990 was contradictory, inasmuch as his contention in I.D. No. 874/1990 was to the effect that since the Management asked him to work as Editor of the Magazine ‘Rani Comics’, he joined the service of ‘Rani Comics’ as its Editor on 01.07.1984. It is his further case that since ‘Varanthara Rani’ (Rani Weekly) wanted his service, he offered his service as part time Feature Editor of ‘Varanthara Rani’ (Rani Weekly) from 01.07.1984 and as such, he had been full time Editor of ‘Rani Comics’ and part time Feature Editor of ‘Varanthara Rani’ (Rani Weekly) and according to him, there was no objection from the Management to the said cause of action. The appellant further contended in the said I.D. that from 01.07.1984 on wards, the petitioner was full time Editor of the Magazine ‘Rani Comics’ and his contract of service was only with ‘Rani Comics’ and not with ‘Varanthara Rani’ (Rani Weekly). In fact, in the reply statement filed in I.D. No. 874/1990, there is a clear admission on the part of the appellant that he was not seeking re-employment in ‘Varanthara Rani’ (Rani Weekly). Since it is the case of the appellant that he was in the service of Rani Syndicate which owns both ‘Rani Comics’ and ‘Varanthara Rani’, the question of non-employment from 01.07.1984 in ‘Varanthara Rani’ loses significance as he continued to be in service till 15.03.1988.
12. The grievance of the appellant in I.D. No. 338/1994 pertains to his non-employment in ‘Daily Thanthi’ from 10.06.1981 and the averments made in I.D. No. 338/1994 is considered in the face of the contention in I.D. No. 874/1990, it is seen that he was appointed in ‘Varanthara Rani’ on 10.06.1981 and prior to that he had settled the matter with ‘Daily Thanthi’ on 09.06.1981.
13. The non-employment in ‘Rani Comics’ with effect from 16.03.1988 was the issue in I.D. No. 874/1990 which was challenged in W.P. No. 9562 of 1999. In the said dispute, the relief claimed was for reinstatement with back wages in ‘Rani Comics’. In the said dispute, the Labour Court, after considering the materials produced on either side, came to a categorical finding that the appellant resigned from ‘Rani Comics’ as per his resignation letter dated 15.03.1988 which was marked as Ex.W.20 and also found that as per Ex.W.26, the amount was paid in full and final satisfaction of the claim. It is also on record that the appellant encashed the cheque on 17.03.1988 itself. Later in the place of the appellant, one Kalyana Sundaram was appointed in ‘Rani Comics’.
14. The learned Single Judge considered the whole issue with reference to the pleadings and the evidence adduced on either side and rejected the contention of the appellant by a well considered order.
15. The appellant during the course of his argument contended that the settlement is bad, as calculation was not made in accordance with the salary drawn by him and he was also denied the pay structure as awarded by Justice Palackar Award and as such, the whole settlement is bad and, if it is found that the settlement is bad, he is entitled to be reinstated in service. The appellant also cited judgments to substantiate his case that the settlement is bad and as such, he has to be reinstated in service of the respondent Management. Since the learned Single Judge has considered the whole issue, it is not necessary to deal with those judgments, as there is no quarrel with regard to the legal proposition made in those judgments. We have gone through the judgments and none of the judgments are applicable to the present case, as facts herein are entirely different, more so on account of the fact that the present case relates to the voluntary resignation submitted by the appellant and the acceptance long ago. The appellant has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Srikantha S.M. v. Bharath Earth Movers Ltd. reported in 2005(7) Supreme 209 for the position that there was, in fact, no resignation in the eye of law so as to sever the relationship between the appellant and the first respondent. The said judgment relates to a case wherein on account of frequent transfers, the appellant in the said case submitted his resignation and even before the acceptance of the resignation by the employer, the appellant changed his mind and has withdrawn his resignation and it is in the said context, the Apex Court made the observation as contained in the said judgment. So far as the present case is concerned, the appellant has submitted his resignation, accepted the amount given by the employer in full and final satisfaction of his claim and also encashed the cheque. Therefore, the said judgment has no application in respect of the case pleaded by the appellant. The appellant has also relied on the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Ajaib Singh v. The Sirhind Co-operative Marketing -cum- Processing Service Society Ltd. and another and contended that even where there is delay in approaching the authorities, the Court can mould the relief. The said judgment has no application in the present case inasmuch as the claim was rejected not on account of delay and the contention of the appellant has been rejected only on merits. Similarly, the appellant relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Nicks (India) Tools v. Ram Surat reported in 2004(6) Supreme 320 and contended that the burden of proving that the employee left the services is on the employer. In fact the issue involved in the said judgment pertains to illegal termination of an employee without any notice, charge sheet or enquiry. The said judgment has also no application in respect of the dispute in the present appeals inasmuch as the appellant has voluntarily resigned and the factum of resignation, acceptance of the settlement compensation, etc., were dealt with by the Labour Court extensively.
16. The case as projected by the appellant shows that he seeks reinstatement in all the three newspapers. The appellant contended that he was in service from 1962 to 15.03.1988 and such being the case, the question of non-employment from 10.06.1981 to 30.06.1984 does not arise at all.
17. The appellant vehemently contended that since the settlement amount falls short of actual entitlement, the very settlement is invalid and he should be reinstated with full back wages. However, it is on record that the appellant has received the entire amount in full and final satisfaction of the claim and he has also encashed the cheque given to him and it is only after long lapse of time, he has come up with a case that the settlement is bad on account of the payment of less amount than the actual sum which he is entitled.
18. It is the further contention of the appellant that Ex.W.20 was in respect of his part time employment with ‘Rani Weekly’ and it has nothing to do with the ‘Rani Comics’. On the other hand, it is the contention of the respondent Management that Rani Syndicate is the owner of both the organisations and the settlement was arrived at between the appellant and the Rani Syndicate which owns both the publications and the cheque was also issued by Rani Syndicate. It is also contended by the contesting respondent that the appellant has resigned the job for starting a new magazine, by name ‘James Bond’. The Labour Court considered all the exhibits marked on either side and arrived at the conclusion that the appellant is not entitled for the relief as prayed for by him. As per Ex.W.19 dated 15.03.1988, it is seen that the appellant has received a sum of Rs. 15,413.30 from ‘Rani Weekly’ and Ex.W.20 dated 15.03.1988 is the resignation letter given by the appellant and Ex.W.26 is the full and final settlement voucher. The Labour Court also considered Exs.W.29 to W.32 which are James Bond Novel Book and the appellant has admitted that since he was denied employment by the Management, he was compelled to join as the Editor of James Bond. The Labour Court also found on the basis of the available materials that the appellant worked in ‘Daily Thanthi’ and on settling his accounts, he was appointed as Editor in ‘Rani Weekly’ and later he was appointed as Feature Editor of ‘Rani Comics’. In Ex.W.20, the appellant has stated that he is resigning the job, as he wants to start his own business and requested to settle his account and to relieve him immediately. In his evidence, the appellant has admitted the said document and also his signature. However, it was the case of the appellant before the Labour Court that Ex.W.20 was given as per the direction of the Manager and as there was no evidence in support the said contention of the appellant, the Labour Court negatived the said contention. The appellant has accepted the cheque issued by the Management and encashed the same within two days. The appellant has no case initially that what was given to him was less than the actual entitlement and it was only before the Labour Court, he has raised all these disputes in respect of resignation as well as the invalidity of settlement. The Labour Court also found from the subsequent conduct of the appellant in starting a magazine, by name James Bond that the resignation of the appellant from the respondent organisation was voluntary. Similarly, in I.D. No. 338/1994 also, all the contentions raised by the appellant were answered on the basis of the materials available before the Labour Court. In the said dispute, the appellant has also contended that Ex.M.3-Service Register has not been closed on 09.06.1981 and as such, it has to be taken that the employment of the appellant has continued and as such, he should be reinstated in ‘Daily Thanthi’ from 09.06.1981 on wards along with back wages and continuity of service and the salary received from ‘Varanthara Rani’ and ‘Rani Comics’ upto March 1988 could be deducted from the back wages. However, from the evidence of the appellant himself and from the documents Exs.W.1 to W.23 as well as the documents in Exs.M.1 to M.7, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the appellant has resigned from the establishment of the respondent Management by receiving the entire amount and as such, he had no right to seek any relief as claimed in the dispute and ultimately answered the issues against the appellant. The learned Single Judge considered the entire matter with reference to the order of the Labour Court and the materials on record and held that the Award in I.D. No. 338/1994 and I.D. No. 874/1990 does not call for interference and since the entire aspect of the matter in I.D. No. 340/1996 has already been considered in I.D. No. 874/1990, the learned Single Judge set aside the Award dated 11.04.2002 in I.D. No. 340/1996 and allowed the writ petition preferred by the Management.
19. The Labour Court considered the entire evidence with reference to the pleadings in I.D. Nos. 338 of 1994 and 874 of 1990 and those findings cannot be termed to be an erroneous finding or perverse so as to interfere in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of an Award of the Labour Court or Tribunal is not as an appellate authority and while exercising judicial review, the Court is only expected to consider as to whether the finding is perverse or is not supported by any evidence and in a given situation, if two views are possible, the views of the Court of facts has to be given due weight. Judicial review is concerned about illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety and the Court could also examine as to whether a decision taken by the Tribunal is reasonable or not in the facts and circumstances of the case. But the Court cannot substitute its judgment unless the same is shown to be perverse or erroneous being based on no evidence. Therefore, looking at every angle, the findings given by the Labour Court in I.D. Nos. 338 of 1994 and 874 of 1990 appears to be correct. The Award of the Labour Court in I.D. No. 340 of 1996 appears to be made without considering the Award in I.D. No. 874 of 1990 and as such, the learned Single Judge was justified in confirming the Award in I.D. Nos. 338 of 1994 and 874 of 1990 and setting aside the Award in I.D. No. 340 of 1996.
20. The appellant is seeking reinstatement in all the three newspapers on the ground that the termination is illegal. All the contentions raised by the appellant were answered by the Labour Court on the basis of the pleadings and evidence adduced by both the parties and those findings were considered by the learned Single Judge in its proper perspective and all the issues were found against the appellant and as such, we do not find any reason to interfere in the well considered judgment of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, all the Writ Appeals are dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.