- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Gyanendra Sahay v. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. .
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant, Mr. Gyanendra Sahay, joined the respondent Company, Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited, as a Management Trainee and was later confirmed as an Executive Assistant. After various transfers within the organisation, he submitted a handwritten application on 1-4-1995 seeking premature/voluntary retirement along with an ex-gratia payment. The Company accepted the request the same day and released a letter detailing his entitlement to full retiral benefits and separate consideration of an ex-gratia amount.
Approximately 48 days later, the appellant asked the Company to revoke his retirement, alleging that he had been compelled to resign under undue pressure. When the Company refused, he raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court under the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act. The Labour Court held in his favour and ordered reinstatement with full back wages.
The respondent Company challenged the award via a writ petition before the Patna High Court (Ranchi Bench). A learned Single Judge affirmed the Labour Court’s findings, deeming the resignation coerced. On appeal, however, a Division Bench reversed that decision, holding the retirement voluntary. The appellant sought relief before the Supreme Court of India by special leave; leave was granted, leading to the present appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the appellant’s letter dated 1-4-1995 seeking premature/voluntary retirement was the product of undue and excessive pressure exerted by officers of the respondent Company, thereby rendering his retirement involuntary and amounting to illegal termination.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments
- Contended that he was summoned to Jamshedpur and compelled to submit the retirement application under coercion.
- Highlighted the “unnatural” speed with which the Company accepted the retirement on the very same day and relieved him from service.
- Pointed to personal hardship, stating that his settlement amount had been adjusted against a building loan, leaving him without means to support his family.
Respondent’s Arguments
- Submitted that the appellant voluntarily authored and personally handed over the resignation letter, which was written in his own handwriting.
- Maintained that all retiral benefits were paid promptly, including gratuity, provident fund, superannuation, leave encashment, medical facilities, and an ex-gratia payment.
- Emphasised that the appellant’s first protest came only 48 days after retirement, undermining the claim of coercion.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court closely examined the Division Bench’s judgment and found its reasoning “cogent and convincing.” Central to the Court’s analysis were:
- The retirement letter was indisputably written in the appellant’s own handwriting and delivered in person.
- The contemporaneous acceptance letter explicitly granted all retiral benefits and considered an additional ex-gratia payment, indicating benevolent—not coercive—treatment.
- The appellant failed to identify any specific officer who allegedly coerced him or to supply evidence beyond vague allegations. The Court underscored that “suspicion and doubt cannot take the place of evidence.”
- The Labour Court’s contrary finding was held to be unsupported by any credible material; therefore, its award was unsustainable.
- Acceptance and utilisation of retiral benefits without protest further undermined the appellant’s claim.
Accordingly, the Court affirmed the Division Bench’s conclusion that the appellant’s retirement was voluntary and not an illegal termination.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED. The Supreme Court affirmed the Division Bench’s judgment and refused reinstatement or back wages. No order as to costs.
Implications: The decision settles the dispute exclusively between the parties, confirming the voluntariness of the appellant’s retirement. The Court left open a limited window for the appellant to make a fresh representation to the Company if any retiral dues remain unpaid. No new precedent of broader application was established.
Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan, J.— This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi allowing the appeal filed by the respondent herein.
2. The appellant was appointed as Management Trainee with the respondent Company. He was confirmed as Executive Assistant in the office of the Controller of Budgets at Jamshedpur. He was transferred to the Mines Unit in August 1989. On 23-2-1994, he was posted to perform his duties in the engineering cell.
3*. According to the respondent herein, the appellant submitted an application on 1-4-1995 for his premature/voluntary retirement with a request to consider his case for payment of ex gratia amount, in view of his long association with the Company. The application for voluntary retirement was accepted on the same day i.e 1-4-1995. According to the appellant, he was compelled to retire prematurely and was compelled to submit application for voluntary retirement due to undue and excessive pressure, exercised by the officers of the Company. The appellant made request to reconsider his case sympathetically and reinstate him in service by revoking the retirement given to him and transfer him back to Jamshedpur in any suitable department and also pay his increment for January 1994 and January 1995. The prayer was made to the management to consider his case sympathetically, specially because his entire settlement has been adjusted against his building loan with the result that after working for 15 years in the respondent Company, he does not know how to manage his family.
4. The respondent by letter dated 22-6-1995 rejected the request of the appellant stating that since the appellant has resigned from service of the Company from 1-4-1995 and that his resignation has been accepted, it will not be possible to consider his case for employment in the Company. The appellant raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court under the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act contending that his resignation was not voluntary and he was forced to submit the application for premature/voluntary retirement. The preliminary issue as to the maintainability of the matter before the Labour Court was also raised which was overruled by the Labour Court. Finally, the Labour Court held that the appellant is entitled to relief of reinstatement in service with full back wages and other consequential benefits.
5**. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court, the respondent preferred Civil Writ Petition No. 3802 of 1999 before the High Court of Judicature at Patna, Ranchi Bench. The learned Single Judge of the said court after considering the rival contentions was of the opinion that since the resignation was accepted on the same day and the appellant complainant was relieved on the same day, the same was quite unnatural and that by itself created a doubt in the mind of the court. The learned Single Judge also held that the appellant was coerced to submit his resignation letter and the same was accepted on the same day and, therefore, it was not voluntary and it will amount to illegal termination of the services of the appellant.
6. On being aggrieved, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench by its judgment dated 24-1-2005 allowed the appeal filed by the respondent herein. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, the appellant has come before this Court by filing Special Leave Petition No. 9744 of 2005. Leave was granted by this Court on 24-2-2006.
7. The appellant-in-person has argued his case. He invited our attention to various letters and correspondence that were exchanged between the appellant and the respondent Company and also drew our attention to the order passed by the Labour Court, the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench. He also invited our attention to the evidence led before the Labour Court. Since the appellant is a party-in-person, we allowed him to argue this case at length and gave him a full and patient hearing. The appellant reiterated the grounds raised in the civil appeal at the time of hearing and submitted that he was summoned to Jamshedpur and compelled to submit the letter of premature/voluntary retirement.
8. We have also heard Mr Raju Ramachandran, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent. He also explained the circumstances under which the letter of resignation was accepted. According to Mr Raju Ramachandran, after the resignation was accepted, the management has paid his entire retiral benefits to the appellant herein. Mr Ramachandran also submitted that even though the appellant has submitted his letter of premature/voluntary retirement on 1-4-1995, he represented to the management after 48 days requesting them to reconsider his request for premature/voluntary retirement and reinstate him in service.
9. The only issue which arises for reconsideration is whether the appellant was compelled to write and sign the application for premature/voluntary retirement due to undue and excessive pressure, exercised by the officers of the respondent Company.
10. We have carefully read the judgment passed by the learned Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court. The learned Judges while rejecting the contention of the appellant herein have given cogent and convincing reasons in arriving at the conclusion in the appeal. This apart, the appellant in his own handwriting submitted the letter dated 1-4-1995 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.
11. We have carefully perused the letter dated 1-4-1995 which reads thus:
“GM (O.M & O.)
NIMdated 1-4-1995
Dear Sir,
I have been working with the Company for the last 15 years. Now I wish to retire prematurely from the Company with all retiral benefits. I would also request the Company to consider paying me some ex gratia amount considering my long association with the Company.
Thanking you,Yours faithfully,
(GYANENDRA SAHAY)
P. No. 110017
Dy. Manager (Admn.)”
The above request was accepted by the General Manager on the same date i.e 1-4-1995 and the following letter was handed over to the respondent, accepting his premature/voluntary retirement. The said letter reads as follows:
“THE TATA IRON AND STEEL COMPANY LIMITED
JAMSHEDPUR 831 001 INDIA
AO/6458/95
Mr Gyanendra Sahay
P. No. 110017
Dy. Manager (Admn.)
Mines Division,
Noamundi
Dear Mr Sahay,
Re: Your letter dated 1-4-1995
Kindly refer to your letter of 1-4-1995. After due consideration, and also keeping in view your long association, the Company has agreed, as a special case, to retire you as requested by you with immediate effect.
You will be entitled to all the retiral benefits of the Company which would have otherwise been available to you at your superannuation. In addition, your request for ex gratia is being considered separately.
Please get in touch with the General Manager (Finance and Accounts) for your full and final settlement.
We wish you and your family the very best in life.
Yours sincerely,
sd/- (illegible)
(M. FASIHUDDIN)
General Manager (O.M & O.)”
12. It is seen from the said letter that the request for premature/voluntary retirement was accepted by the management on 1-4-1995 with immediate effect. The letter also clearly states that the appellant will be entitled to all the retiral benefits of the Company which would have otherwise been available to him at his superannuation. The management has also stated that the appellant's request for ex gratia is being considered separately. By the said letter, the appellant was directed to get in touch with the General Manager (Finance & Accounts) for his full and final settlement.
13. In this context, it is useful to refer to p. 96 of the appeal paper-book which was marked as Annexure P-5 which is a letter dated 12-4-1995 addressed to the appellant. It is stated in the letter that the management has decided to extend the following facilities to the appellant on his premature retirement:
“1. Retiring gratuity as per rules for the actual service rendered by you.
2. Provident fund, including Company's contribution in full.
3. Superannuation fund, as per rules.
4. Payment of cash, equivalent to the privilege and furlough leave including proportionate leave due to you.
5. Free medical facilities as applicable to the retiring officers in the respective divisions.
In addition to the above, you will be eligible for an ex gratia payment, details of which will be available with DM (Accounts), Mines Division. You may kindly contact him on any working day during office hours.”
14. We have also perused the memo of appeal and other representation made by the appellant. The appellant has made a vague allegation that he was forced to take retirement. Neither has he made it specific nor had given the name of any officer who compelled him to write the letter dated 1-4-1995 or exercised undue 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 submit the letter of resignation, the same is not supported by any acceptable evidence. It is settled law that 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 a letter of voluntary retirement and after having accepted the retiral benefits without any protest cannot now turn round and say that he was compelled to submit his premature/voluntary retirement. The appeal has absolutely no merits and we, therefore, have no hesitation to dismiss the same and to affirm the order passed by the learned Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court. No order as to costs.
15. It is submitted by Mr Raju Ramachandran, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent that all the retiral benefits including ex gratia have been paid and settled to the appellant. On the other hand, the appellant-in-person states that all the retiral benefits as per the terms of acceptance have not been paid fully to him. If there is any amount due, 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 management is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Alert