Case: MANJU SAXENA Vs. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF LABOUR

2. Briefly stated, the factual matrix in which the present S.L.P. has been filed are summarized as under:2.1 The Appellant was appointed on 01.04.1986 as a Lady Confidential Secretary by the 2 nd Respondent- HSBC Bank, (hereinafter referred to asthe R2-Bank). Subsequently, on 23.04.1992 the Appellant came to be promoted as aSenior Confidential Secretary to the Senior Manager (North India) of HSBC.2.2 In May 2005, the post ofSenior Confidential Secretary became redundant, as the Officer with whom the Appellant was attached, left the services of the R2-Bank. Her services were utilized by giving her some other duties for the time being, till alternate jobs could be offered to her. The Management admittedly offered her four alternate jobs of(i) Business Development Officer,(ii) Customer Service Officer,(iii) Clearing Officer, and(iv) Banking Services Officer. Each of these jobs were in the same pay scale.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 work-knowledge 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 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 re-instatement to the R2-Bank. Conciliation proceedings were commenced between the Appellant and R2-Bank, wherein the Appellant made the following claims:Bank, in response, offered the following package: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) claimingan enhanced severance package, waiver of outstanding Housing Loan, and full pension. The Claim was opposed by the R2-Bank. The R2-Bank filed its Written Statement and contested the claim of the Appellant, stating that the Appellant was not aI.D. Act, while terminating the services of the Appellant. The Ld. CGIT passed an Award dated 01.06.2009, and directed the R2-Bank to re- instate the Appellant, with full terminal benefits.2.6 The R2-Bank filed Writ Petition bearing No. W.P. (C) 11344/2009 before the Delhi High Court, to challenge the Award passed by the CGIT. The High Court vide Interim Order dated 22.03.2013 remanded the matter to the CGIT for fresh consideration on the point whether the Appellant could be considered to be a Workman as per the Industrial Disputes Act,1947. The Writ Petition was kept pending during the pendency of the remand. The CGIT passed a fresh Award dated 15.07.2015 holding the Appellant to be aworkman under the I.D. Act, 1947. The Ld. CGIT directed the R2-Bank to re- instate the Appellant with continuity of service, full back wages, and all consequential benefits.2.7 During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the Appellant had filed an Application under S. 17B of the I.D. Act, 1947 before the Delhi High Court seeking interim maintenance. The High Court vide Interim Order dated 27.07.2012 directed payment of a monthly sum of Rs. 75,000/- to the Appellant, towards Interim Maintenance u/S. 17B of the I.D. Act, 1947.2.8 Aggrieved by the Order dated 27.07.2012, the R2 Bank filed an L.P.A. before the Delhi High Court to challenge the amount awarded to the Appellant u/S. 17B. The Division Bench vide Order dated 24.08.2012, reduced the monthly sum payable to Rs. 58,330/- per month which was as per her last drawn salary. The S.L.P. filed by the Appellant being S.L.P. (C) No. 36513/2012 to challenge the Order dated 24.08.2012, came to be dismissed vide Order dated 07.01.2013. The Appellant accordingly has been paid back wages u/S. 17B at Rs. 58,330/- per month.2.9 The Appellant also raised a claim for waiver of the outstanding amount of a Housing Loan availed by her during the course of her service, which was outstanding on the date of her termination. The total amount of outstanding loan was approximately Rs. 22,16,702/-. The Appellant challenged proceedings for recovery initiated by the R2-Bank before the Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 19451/2006. A Consent Order dated 18.03.2010 came to be passed whereby the outstanding amount of Rs. 22,16,702/- towards the Housing Loan, was to be adjusted from her back wages, subject to the final outcome of the W.P. (C) No. 13344/2009.2.10 The Writ Petition filed by the R2-Bank was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide Judgment and Order dated 12.04.2017, and the Award passed by the CGIT came to be set aside. The High Court accepted the R2-Banks submissions, and held that the Appellants 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 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 dated12.04.2017 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., andupheld the Judgment ofthe 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, 1947.2.12 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.

Court's reasoning:
In any event, the claims raised by the Appellant before various forums were with respect to enhancement of compensation, which are monetary in nature. The Appellants 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 conciliationproceedings she has only asked for an enhanced severance package, and not reinstatementOnce 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 I.D. Act, 1947. S. 25F of the I.D. Act, 1947 lays down the conditions that are required to be fulfilled by an employer, while terminating the services of an employee, who has been incontinuous service of the employer. Hence, S. 25F of the I.D. Act, would cease to apply on herIn the present case, the R2-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).