MANJU SAXENA versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [2018] 14 S.C.R. 993 · Decided: 03-12-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
993
MANJU SAXENA
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 11766-11767 of 2018)
DECEMBER 03, 2018
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
ss.2(oo) and 25F – The post held by the employee became
redundant – Offer of four alternate posts by the employer – Refused
by the employee – Severance package also refused by the employee
– Thereupon termination of her service – Compensation of
Rs.8,17,071/- granted – Industrial dispute raised seeking
enhancement of severance package – Conciliation proceedings
failed – Industrial Tribunal directed the employer to reinstate the
employee with continuity of service and full terminal benefits – Writ
petition by employer – During pendency of writ, interim maintenance
u/s.17B granted which was affirmed in appeal – Writ petition of
employer allowed by Single Judge of High Court directing the
employee to refund the entire amount received  by her except the
sum of Rs.8,17,071/- – Order  of Single Judge upheld by Division
Bench in LPA – Review also dismissed – On appeal, held: The
conduct of employee would constitute voluntary abandonment of
service – Hence, she could not have been in “continuous service”
as defined u/s. 2(oo) – Since she was not in “continuous service”,
s. 25F would cease to apply – Employee has already received an
amount which is almost double the amount claimed by her – The
received amount shall be treated as a final settlement of all her
claims.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. It is the admitted position that the employer Bank
had offered four alternative positions to the appellant which were
at par with her existing pay scale and emoluments. The appellant
was however not willing to accept any of the alternate positions
offered to her. Nor was she willing to accept the redundancy
package offered to her. In the circumstances the Bank was
justified in terminating the services of the appellant.
[Para 5.1][1001-E-F]
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 993
993
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
994                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
2. The Appellant’s conduct would constitute a voluntary
abandonment of service, since the appellant herself had declined
to accept the various offers of service in the Bank. Furthermore,
even during conciliation proceedings she has only asked for an
enhanced severance package, and not reinstatement. Once it is
established that the appellant had voluntarily abandoned her
service, she could not have been in “continuous service”
as defined under s. 2(oo) the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
[Para 5.3][1002-D-F]
The Buckingham & Carnatic Co. Ltd. v Venkatiah &
Ors. (1964) 4 SCR 265 ; Vijay S Sathaye v Indian
Airlines Ltd. & Ors. (2013) 10 SCC 253 : [2013] 10
SCR 73 – relied on.
3. Section 25F of the 1947 Act lays down the conditions
that are required to be fulfilled by an employer, while terminating
the services of an employee, who has been in “continuous
service” of the employer. Hence, s. 25F of the Act, would cease
to apply on her. [Para 5.3][1002-E-F]
4. In the present case, the Bank has paid the appellant a
sum of Rs. 8,17,071/-, which included 6 months’ pay in lieu of
Notice under s. 25F(a) and an additional amount calculated on
the basis of 15 days’ salary multiplied by the number of years of
service, in compliance with s. 25F(b). However, no Notice was
sent to the Appropriate Government or authority notified, in
compliance with s. 25F(c) of the Act.  The requirement of clause
(c) of s. 25F can be treated only as directory and not mandatory.
[Para 5.3][1003-G-H; 1004-A-B]
Gurmail Singh & Ors. v State of Punjab & Ors. (1991)
1 SCC 189 : [1990] 2 Suppl. SCR 367 ; Pramod Jha &
ors. v State of Bihar & Ors. (2003) 4 SCC 619 : [2003]
2 SCR  512 – relied on.
5. The appellant has admittedly received an amount of Rs.
1,07,73,736/- under various heads. The appellant has claimed an
amount of Rs. 69.99 lakhs. The Appellant has already received
almost double the amount claimed by her.  The afore-said amounts
received by her may be treated as a final settlement of all her
claims. [Para 5.4 and 6][1004-C-E; 1004-F]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
995
Hathisingh Manufacturing Ltd. v Union of India AIR
1960 SC 923 : [1960] SCR 528 – followed.
Case Law Reference
[1964] 4 SCR 265
relied on
Para 5.3
[2013] 10 SCR 73
relied on
Para 5.3
[1960] SCR 528 
followed
Para 5.3
[1990] 2 Suppl. SCR 367 
relied on
Para 5.3
[2003] 2 SCR  512
relied on
Para 5.3
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 11766-
11767 of 2018.
Fro

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