Case: Rukshana Eisa Vs. Union of India &amp; Others

The petitioner submitted a letter of resignation onwhich was to come into effect onThe petitioner was relieved w.e.f.The petitioners dues were settled and a cheque in the sum of Rs.7,05,092/were paid in full and final settlement of all her claims.2. It appears, thereafter the company introduced a scheme whereby employees, if they resigned from the company were given a package of severance. After this was paid to the other employees, petitioner by a letter datedinformed the respondent No.3 in the following terms:"Had I known that the Base was about to shut down just two months after my resignation, I would have differed my decision. You can imagine my feeling of betrayel with a company that had recognized my worth and appreciated my performance, was denying/depriving me of a severance package that was being offered to my colleagues."In this letter, there was no averment that the earlier letter was taken under duress, coercion or threat nor after letter of resignation and acceptance and receiving benefits did the petitioner address any letter beforethat the resignation was under coercion, threat, fraud or like. It is only some time onwhen the petitioner for the first time contended that she was threatened and coercioned in submitting resignation letter datedwhich was far from voluntary.

Reasoning: 5. In our opinion, considering these facts it is clear that the decision of the appropriate Government not to refer the matter for adjudication by way of industrial reference cannot be said to be contrary to law and contrary to Section 10 and 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act.