IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER
BEFORE ¢
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE _
REGULAR FIRST i\}O_.83S/2C§Q;§'
BEIWEEN: VA A
Channachari .
Aged about 56__Vears _ '
S / 0 Late Ka_1,ac1f;ari '
No.6232,%13dé'1v;A.:r1.% = j
1st Block, 1111" Sta«g'e.V A
BasaVeshw'araf1ag'ar ..
BaI1_ga10ré'+- 56.0 "V079. " ...APPELLAN'I'
" {B§}5'SriA..:C.M.Naigab11ushana, Adv. ,)
Sari Eriéineering &
Loé0--ri1Qtive C0,, Ltd.,
P.o.Bo;: N0.4802
.. Whitefield Road
" Bangalore -- 560 048
'~ "Represented by its
A ._..Managing Director. ...RESPONDENT
[By M/s S.N.Murthy & Assts., 8:
Sri. Somashekar, Advs.)
I’-Q
This R.F.A.is filed under Section 96 of CPC
the judgment and decree dated 2.3.2oo5,paeeedan
OS.No.8959/2001 on the file of the V111 Addl.VCit§”C.ii;il”»
Judge, Bangalore city [CCH:15)J.dis_mis_sing” for”.
damages.
This appeal is comii1g”‘-on fortdictatir1§;’judgmer1’twif
this day, the Court delivered__the: fol_lowir1g.:f_§_ V’?
the judgment and
decreepassed’in:0e;SL}’i~l0;S9h59/01 dated 02.03.2005 on
the file ofthe Civil Judge, Bangalore.
The Allpavr-eie’s would be referred as per their
the trial court.
is one for declaration that the termination
of tlie3 plaintiff from the service of the defendant-
“C_o’_fi-ipany with effect from 26.09.2000 is arbitrary,
0. iillegal and claimed Rs.3 lakhs by way of compensation.
4. The case of the plaintiff is that was
appointed as a fitter on 13.01.1975 on daily’:’RTZ$i.’%?:’¥eSVV of
Rs.1i.60/–. As he was working sincerely pgiiitll
he was promoted. On
individually called several
prepared by the Corpo’iiat’e.t_> Office “lthemii
including the plaintiff precarious
financial condition of Company is
unable to con~t:iri~1_ie _:the.4Vs*eiv_iVce “of the plaintiff and
insisted ‘– l = ‘l should tender voluntary
resignation. . piaintiff did not agree, on the
or.1_.._.26.09.2000, when he went to the
‘ .~facto1*y,:”~l;1c not permitted and was asked to meet
.thelAManag_efnent at the hotel. At the hotel, about 9
persons from the management were present in the room
“if the plaintiff was called and was forced to tender
his resignation and was issued with cheque for a sum
of Rs.i,35,000/–~ and Rs.12,089/– towards ex–gratia
payment. The said resignation was obtained by 3
r%%
coercion/force. By letter dated 24.10.2000, the
Management also issued another for
Rs.60,473/~» towards gratuity amount.
another 61/2 years service, he
default or misconduct and it
coercive steps taken by 60
years service. Since the was salary of
Rs. 10,000/– at the of his service, as
such, he is entitled lRs.5 lakhs with
interest at In this regard, he issued a
legal noticed dated0:54li’.2001 and the Management gave
c_l_ated””23.._05.2001 denying the allegation and
V —the claim of the plaintiff. It is in these
‘circumstances, the plaintiff was constrained to file a
suit;
5. The Defer1dant-Company on service of
‘summons, appeared and filed written statement. it
denied that the Management had compelled the plaintiff
t
csts’.
u– ,
to tender resignation. However, the Management
admitted that the Company was suffering from
financial problems. This circumstance
the notice of the employees and onDnegotiations,”pl’aintiff” ,
has agreed to accept the pac-,kage.~ Acc0rding1y,l’l’1O:n
26.09.2000, he voluntari1y:_ter1dere’d re$ig;1a:i.ci1 am: *
thereafter, he collected A,t.hleF._chequhe -a.nd_.:§ ex–gratia
payment and also c0i1’ected_vl:hve amount. It is
only after sevenv..rno:nth:s hisVi’~resignation, he issued a
legallknotice demand for which the
manageinent “a.:_r.eply and alleged that the plaintiff
isrlot _;e11titled”for…the relief as sought for.
“SJ –._trial court on the basis of the above
llpleadingsjhas framed five issues, which is as under:–
[i) Whether the plaintiff proves that
his termination from the service of the
defendant company with effect from
26.09.2000 is unlawful, arbitrary,
illegal and void?
or”
6
(ii) Whether the plaintiff proves
he is entitled to claim Rs.3
compensation from the defendantjV’efoi*
the remaining periodeof. ‘4 V’
(iii) Whether the pivaintiff ispl,.”_cntitled–4.l”‘
for declaratory asl’prayed:’v_for*?”‘
(iv) To Jjjwhat parties’ are
entitled A l
{M j;.1y.i?iwh?a.: c»:d§er”of[d}:cre.é?
ll examined as PW–l and
produced””E;:s..Pi-. On behalf of the defendant.
1;_v:vasp.eXarnii’i’ed and produced Exs.D1 to D6. Trial
‘ltgoiirt: appreciation of the evidence on record has held
theipiaintiff has not proved the termination is
pillegalgand arbitrary and he has also not proved his
claim for compensation of Rs.3 lakhs and is not entitled
V. _..i’or declaratory relief and accordingly, dismissed the
suit. It is against this judgment and decree, the plaintiff
is in this appeal. 9′;’::fi,….
8. Learned Counsel for the appellant–p1aintiff
submitted that it is not in dispute that the p1a.in’tiff,:was
appointed as a fitter on meager salary of
the year 1975. Due to his ha;_~d”‘werl;”.,g1n_d” he i
was promoted and he Twas”
Rs.10,77i/-. On 25.09.200v£l:,”‘*the manageinentffinsisted
that the plaintiff should tenderelusinresignation. When he
is refused to do so, to enter the
and he was compelled
to go” _ Residency road, where 9
majnagemerit Artlefnhfersff were present and they compelled
.hiin tender his resignation. As such, resignation is
pnotAdda-,4Valid.A’.i’resignation and is a void document, as it
does ..i*iot.A«:atnount to voluntary act. As there were 9
it npersoris”. the plaintiff had no other option, except to
“.ter1’der his resignation and it is in these circumstances,
“his resignation was taken. The plaintiff was “not aware
of his rights, when he was advised to file a suit, he
1
1
issued a legal notice and the delay should notgcorne in
the way of the legitimate claim. It is not Vvithéatp
the plaintiff had still 61/2 years service.an,d’ftheife._1sl»hp
reason for plaintiff to tender his resigénatieoii ‘and
submitted that sirnilarlyf placed._’emp1o3}Vees:4__:Vgoi;; lltlige,
benefit of more than whatlzthe got. He
therefore submitted…_z’:g”that the court Without
appreciating the evidences on_rsco1fd;”lias dismissed the
suit, which Ltallsnfor..ii1terfereng.3,’
_On the”:.other::’i3and, learned Counsel for the
defer1dant:~5Compan3}’ siihmitted that. defendant does not
thewplaintiff was working in the company.
.1-I.ic_;wxe=.-r.’=,§’i–*,.,gCV company’s financial position was not
so’und,° Company was under the financial crises and
nu.nder”” the precarious circumstances, the Company
C “negotiated with the employees, bringing to their notice
V’ ” “the Company’s position, and under these circumstances
the employees tendered voluntary resignation and same
was accepted. The management had offered package.
which was accepted by the employees and accordingly.
plaintiff had also accepted the package””‘a:’id:
tendered his resignation, and after mon_ey..
and also after collecting the gratuityaainountQ”-afte:r.__}a.ps&e
of 7 months, he issued*:a’~..§egai’~.not.ice;’I
voiuntary resignation, plaintiff-.c_oL1_}d not liavetkept quiet
for 7 months. He a1soi”s.ubmi.t’teud’thattaking advantage
of package _”‘c1T.?<Z1 .a':terI'; same. as an
afterthot1'gl1t,"'v"t:heVtpiaintiff "has filed a suit, which is
frivolousiand the'ttriahcourt on proper appreciation of
evid"en.c_e.has rightly dismissed the suit.
1 Eight of the submissions, the point that
art-.ses__"for 'consideration is as to
"VVhether the judgment and decree of
the trial court calls for interference"?
1 1. The facts which are not in dispute are that the
plaintiff was an employee in the defendant company and
he had worked from 1975 till 26.09.2000.
according to the plaintiff, on
informed by the management that he ..
resignation, for which he had7,_Vno.t~agreed-,andVen the
next day he was prevented and
resignation was obtained. is ac«eepted?, plaintiff
would not have kept"'qt1iet'–.fo;f to issue a legal
notice allegingithat not voluntary. It
is also not tliat plaintiff makes
an application of gratuity. It is also not in
dispute received the gratuity amount
of ch'eq1_.1e_.son 24.10.2000 for an amount of
–_i\/lanagement alleges that if he has not
resignation he would not have
aceeptedlthe compensation of Rs.1,35,000/– and ex~
A “if payment Rs. l2,089/- which are paid by cheque.
it is not in dispute that the plaintiff got both the
cheques encashed and after nearly one week, he makes
an application for payment of gratuity. Gratuity was
étri
F
not paid on the very same day and it was received on
24.10.2000. If the plaintiff had intended to he
could not have made an application for;payf(n.e1n.;_.Vuof
gratuity and he could not have receiVed_.the_ic-heque, .. 9
for 7 months, he did nothing. it
he calls that the resignation’«tendered by >
however there is no evide’nce–.._to that the
management obtair1.exti_’ in by force.
Management has admitted c.oi:npany’s financial
position “‘-and it was facing difficulty and
as suchifiitd had._made:_”.the request to the employees to
acc’ep:t_gf’thge paciaage; After having accepted the same,
‘ ssuitgwas my opinion, voiuntary resignation is a
if it is coercive action, he could have
taiienia “proper action immediately. Assuming that
i.thei?e was some dispute between the management and
the plaintiff and was any confusion, after having
accepted the compensation and also ex–gratia amount,
the fact that after giving resignation. making an
application for gratuity and accepting the gratuity by
cheque, this clearly show that the p1aintiff..’teiidered
voluntary resignation, there was no
accepted all the payments. the
payment, as an after thought, the
opinion, the trial courtddoiri-.._pr0per ‘apdprevcivatiiig they
evidence on record has rightiy’~.disrfii,ssed the suit.
12. Learned had relied on
decisiondqof reported in AIR 1969 Mysore
230, stat’ing’ act is done under the
coercion, does ‘not’vaiidate such an act.
113. The fadctsdin the said case is entirely different.
Vprove that it is wrongful act, it is not proved
the resignation was under force or pressure or
xcompu.-ision. In turn the conduct of the piaintiff and the
he ‘~~V_Vcirei1mstances do prove that he tendered his resignation
” opened eyes and after having accepted everything,
the suit was filed.
14. Considering the same, there is no error
Committed by the triai court in dismissing the N0
grounds to interfere.
15. Accordingly, I pass the fo110\vin_g;u: ‘ in
;V’VAppe’aI5i_s dis1i;is’se_’cE. No order as to costs.
sd/-
JUDGE