Sandeep V. Marne JUDGMENT
Sandeep V. Marne, J.
1. The Petitioner-Employer has filed this petition challenging the Judgment and Order dated 22 June 2023 passed by the Industrial Court, Pune reversing the decision of the Labour Court and allowing the complaint filed by the Respondent-employee. The Industrial Court has directed the Petitioner to pay lumpsum compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-to the Respondent in lieu of his reinstatement.
2. Petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture, service and maintenance of hardware and had employed 15 employees at the relevant time. Respondent was employed with the Petitioner-Company as Junior Engineer on 23 November 1995. Respondent tendered resignation on 4 September 2019 requesting that he be relieved after expiry of period of two months. However, since he was prevented from reporting to duties from next day, he lodged FIR with the police on 11 September 2019 about forcible resignation and also served a legal notice making various allegations against Petitioner. The Notice was replied by the Petitioner denying the allegations stating that the resignation tendered by Respondent was accepted and that he was to be relieved from his services on 30 September 2019. That he stopped attending Office after tendering resignation and on 17 September 2019 he visited the office and started shouting and yelling at other staff employees.
3. In the above factual background, Respondent filed Complaint (ULP) No. 100 of 2019 in the Labour Court at Pune on 19 October 2019 seeking his reinstatement in service with full backwages and other consequential benefits. The complaint was resisted by the Petitioner by filing Written Statement. Based on the pleadings, the Labour Court framed issues. Both the sides led evidence. The Labour Court delivered Judgment and Order dated 25 February 2022 and dismissed the complaint of the Respondent. Aggrieved by the decision of the Labour Court, the Respondent filed Revision Application (ULP) No. 14 of 2022 before the Industrial Court. The Revision has been allowed by the Industrial Court by Judgment and Order dated 22 June 2023 by setting aside the Labour Court's order. The Industrial Court has allowed Respondent's complaint and has directed the Petitioner to pay lumpsum compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-in lieu of reinstatement with further direction that the compensation amount would be distinct from legal dues which Respondent is entitled otherwise. Aggrieved by the decision of the Industrial Court, the Petitioner-employer has filed the present petition.
4. This Court issued notice to the Respondent by Order dated 27 September 2023 and stayed the direction for payment of lumpsum compensation. The Notice issued by this Court has been duly served on the Respondent as per the Bailiff's Report. However, Respondent has failed to appear in the petition.
5. I have heard, Ms. Tavanandi, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner-Employer. She would submit that the Industrial Court has erred in reversing well-reasoned order of the Labour Court. That Respondent voluntarily resigned from service of the Petitioner-Company on 4 September 2019 and that his resignation was accepted on the same day. That the Industrial Court has erred in directing payment of lumpsum compensation to Respondent ignoring the fact that his resignation is duly accepted by the employer. Ms. Tavanandi would invite my attention to various complaints made by the lady staff of the Petitioner-Company about harassment meted out to them by the Respondent. She would submit that the Industrial Court has erred in not appreciating the fact that the Respondent failed to report to duty after 4 September 2019. She would invite my attention to the averments made in the complaint about acceptance of resignation. That therefore the Industrial Court has erred in holding that the resignation was not accepted. That in pursuance of his resignation, Respondent is entitled to amount of R........