GYANENDRA SAHAY versus M/S. TATA IRON AND STEEL CO. LTD.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 540 · Decided: 13-07-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
GYANENDRASAHAY 
v. 
MIS. TATA IRON AND STEEL CO. LTD. 
JULY 13, 2006 
B 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] 
Labour Laws: 
Voluntary retirement-Appiied by employee-Acceptance thereof on 
C the same day-Representation by employee after 48 drys from the date of 
application for reconsideration and praying for reinstatement-
Representation rejected by employer-Industrial dispute raised by employee 
on the ground that the application for voluntary retirement was signed under 
undue and excessive pressure-Labour Court as well as Single Judge of High 
D Court held that the employee was coerced to submit his resignation-Division 
Bench of High Court allowed the case of employer-In appeal, held: In view 
of the facts of the case, employee cannot be said to be compelled to write and 
sign the application for voluntary retirement due to undue and excessive 
pressure-The fact that employee was coerced to submit resignation is not 
supported by acceptable evidence-There are only vague a/legations against 
E the employer-Su:-picion and doubt cannot take place of evidence and finding 
of fact cannot be based thereon-Evidence. 
Appellant, an employee of the respondent-company submitted an 
application for his premature/voluntary retirement with request to consider 
F his case for payment of ex-gratia amount. The application was acctpted on 
the same day and on the very day he was relieved from the service. After 48 
days from the date of the application, appellant represented to the management 
requesting to re-consider his request for voluntary retirement and reinstate 
him in service. The representation was rejected by the respondent. 
G 
H 
Appellant raised an industrial dispute contending that his resignation 
was not voluntary and he was forced to submit the application for voluntary 
retirement under undue and excessive pressure. Labour Court held the 
appellant entitled to relief of reinstatement with full back wages and other 
consequential benefits. In Writ Petition, Single Jude of High Court held that 
appellant was coerced to submit his resignation letter and the same was 
540 
.. 
GY ANENDRA SAHA Yr. TA TA IRON AND STEEL CO.LTD. 
541 
,,.. 
accepted on the same day, and therefore it was not voluntary and the same A 
would amount to illegal termination of service. Division Bench of High Court 
allowed the appeal of the Company against the order of Single Judge. 
In appeal, the question for consideration before this Court was whether 
the appellant was compelled to sign his application for voluntary retirement 
due to undue and excessive pressure. 
B 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Division Bench of High Court while rejecting the plea of the 
appellant have given cogent and convincing reasons in arriving at the 
conclusion. This apart, the appellant in his own handwriting submitted the c 
letter for premature/voluntary retirement which was accepted on the same 
day. When the letter was written in the handwriting of the appellant and 
presented the same in-person to the authority concerned, it cannot be said 
that the service of the respondent was dispensed with by the respondent-
employer unauthorisedly. 1544-B-D] 
D 
2. The appellant has made a vague allegation that he was forced to take 
retirement. Neither he has made it specific nor had given the name of any 
officer who compelled him to write the letter or exercised undur and excessive 
pressure to sign the letter of premature/voluntary retirement. Though the 
,, 
Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the appellant was compelled to E 
submit the letter of resignation, the same is not supported by any acceptable 
evidence. Suspicion and doubt cannot take the place of evidence. No finding of 
fact can be given on mere doubt and suspicion or on the basis of baseless 
allegations. The appellant having written letter of-voluntary retirement and 
after having accepted the retiral benefits without any protest cannot now turn F 
round and say that he was compelled to submit his premature/voluntary 
retirement. (546-D-F) 
3. If' there is any amount due as per the term£ of acceptance, the 
appellant is at liberty to approach the respondent-management by making a 
representation claiming the said amount. If such a claim is made, the G 
management is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in 
' 
accordance with law. (547-A) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1396 of2006. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.