Manju Saxena vs Union Of India Rep. By Its Secretary ...

2. Briefly   stated,   the   factual   matrix   in   which   the present   S.L.P.   has   been   filed   are   summarized   as under:

2.2 In May 2005, the post of “Senior Confidential Secretary”   became   redundant,   as   the   Officer with whom the Appellant was attached, left the services   of   the   R2­Bank.   Her   services   were utilized by giving her some other duties for the time being, till alternate jobs could be offered to her.

The Appellant has admitted in her Statement of Claim dated 20.03.2006, that she declined to accept   any   of   these   jobs   on   the   ground   that such jobs were either temporary in nature, or the claimant did not possess the experience or work­knowledge to take up such jobs.  2.3   On   01.10.2005,   the   Bank   issued   a   Letter terminating the services of the Appellant on the ground   that   her   current   job   had   become redundant.   The   Appellant   was   offered   several job opportunities, however, she did not choose any   of   these   offers.   The   Bank   had   offered   a generous   severance   package,   which   she   was not   prepared   to   accept.   The   Bank   terminated her service, and paid 6 months’ compensation in   lieu   of   Notice   as   per   the   contract   of employment. In addition, as a special case, the Bank   paid   Compensation,   which   was 3 equivalent   to   15   days’   salary   for   every completed   year   of   service.   The   total   amount paid to the Appellant was Rs. 8,17,071/­. 2.4   The   Appellant   raised   an   Industrial   Dispute before   the   Regional   Labour   Commissioner under   the   Industrial   Disputes   Act,   1947 (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the   I.D.   Act)   on 03.10.2005,   and   sought   enhancement   of   the severance package paid to her. It is relevant to note that the Appellant did not raise any claim for re­instatement to the R2­Bank. Conciliation   proceedings   were   commenced between   the   Appellant   and   R2­Bank,   wherein the Appellant made the following claims:

The   only   difference   between   the   two   parties was   with   respect   to   the   amount   of   Severance payable to the Appellant. Since the parties were unable   to   arrive   at   a   settlement,   the conciliation proceedings failed.  2.5   The   Appellant   filed   her   Statement   of   Claim dated   20.03.2006,   before   the   Central Government Industrial Tribunal (referred to as “the   CGIT”)   claiming  inter   alia  an   enhanced severance   package,   waiver   of   outstanding Housing Loan, and full pension. The Claim was opposed by the R2­Bank. The R2­Bank filed its 5 Written   Statement   and   contested   the  claim  of the   Appellant,   stating   that   the   Appellant   was not a “workman” under the I.D. Act, 1947. The Bank further stated that they had followed the procedure   outlined   under   the   I.D.   Act,   while terminating the services of the Appellant. The   Ld.   CGIT   passed   an   Award   dated 01.06.2009,   and   directed   the   R2­Bank   to   re­ instate   the   Appellant,   with   full   terminal benefits.

The   High   Court   accepted   the   R2­Bank’s submissions,   and   held   that   the   Appellant’s refusal   to   accept   any   of   the   four   alternate positions   offered   to   her,   amounted   to “abandonment” of her job. Hence there was no question   of   her   services   having   been   illegally terminated.   The   Appellant   had   received monetary   compensation   under   several   heads, to   the   tune   of   Rs.   1,07,73,736/­   during   the pendency   of   the   Writ   Petition,   which   was almost   13   times   her   legal   entitlement.   This included   payments   made   under   the   various heads   such   as   Compensation   paid   during termination, Gratuity, Payment towards Interim Award,   Payments   under   S.   17B,   Payment towards   legal   expenses.   The   Appellant   was 9 directed to refund the entire amount except the sum   of   Rs.   8,17,071/­,   which   was   the compensation paid at the time of termination.  2.11   Aggrieved   by   the   Judgment   &   Order   dated 12.04.2017   in   W.P.   (C)   11334/2018,   the Appellant filed L.P.A. No. 467/2017 before the Division   Bench.   The   Division   Bench   vide Judgment & Order dated 14.07.2017 dismissed the   L.P.A.,   and   upheld   the   Judgment   of   the learned Single Judge holding that the Appellant had abandoned her job.

The   Division   Bench   however   modified   the operative   direction   passed   by   the   Ld.   Single Judge for restitution of the amounts paid. The Division Bench ordered that the Appellant shall not be required to restitute the amount of Rs. 8,17,071/­ paid at the time of termination, the litigation   expenses,   and   the   amounts   paid under S. 17B of the I.D. Act, 1947.  10 2.12   The   Appellant   filed   Review   Petition   No. 380/2017   which   was   dismissed   vide   Order dated 13.09.2017.

2.13   The   Appellant   has   assailed   the   Judgment dated 14.07.2017 and Order dated 13.09.2017 passed by the Division Bench in the L.P.A. and the Review Petition, by the present S.L.P.s.

The Civil Appeals stand dismissed, with no order as to costs. All applications stand disposed of accordingly.