Manju Saxena v. The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. & Anr.

1. The Appellant, [for the sake of convenience referred to as, ‘Ms. Saxena’] who appears in person, seems to have no intention to put the litigation to an end, despite having received the amount adjudicated by the Court as the final amount due to her. The facts recounted hereinafter would demonstrate that Ms. Saxena is determined to the keep the issues alive, come what may, by relentlessly filing one application after another. 2021:DHC:608-DB

2. There is a long and chequered history leading to the filing of the present appeal. Having regard to the frivolous nature of the applications, noting the protracted sequence of events, and referring to the Orders passed by this Court as well as the Apex Court will be a painstaking effort for us. However, despite the imposition of cost by the learned Single Judge, waived of in the present appeal vide Order dated 6th September, 2019 [LPA 578/2019], and then re-imposed vide Order dated 10th December, 2019, Ms. Saxena has not desisted from continuing with the litany of applications. Given the above, we consider it appropriate to note the background of this case, as succinctly as possible.

THE GENESIS OF THE DISPUTE

3. Ms. Saxena succeeded before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, where an award dated 1st June, 2009 was rendered in her favour holding that her services were illegally retrenched by the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd., i.e. the Respondent in the present lis [hereinafter referred to as the, ‘Bank’]. When the award was impugned by the Bank before this Court in W.P. (C) 11344/2009, this Court vide judgment dated 12th April, 2017 held that, Ms. Saxena had abandoned her services and there was no case of illegal termination against her; there was a compliance of requirement of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [hereinafter referred to as the, ‘Act’]. In these circumstances, while allowing the writ petition it was held that, since Ms. Saxena has received the amount from the Bank much beyond her legal entitlement, all such amounts which are in excess of Rs. 8,17,071/-, shall be returned by her to the Bank. The Bank was given permission to take necessary proceedings for restitution in accordance with law.

4. In the first intra-court appeal filed by Ms. Saxena [LPA 467/2017], the afore-noted judgment dated 12th April, 2017 was upheld, but at the same time, the Court directed that Ms. Saxena shall not be required to restitute the amount of Rs. 8,17,071/-, the litigation expenses; amount directed to be paid and received by her under Section 17B of the Act.

5. Ms. Saxena was still not satisfied and carried the matter in further appeal by filing a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court which was subsequently converted to Civil Appeal No. 11766-11767/2018. The Supreme Court vide Order dated 3rd December, 2018 recorded that, “the Appellant has admittedly received an amount of Rs. 1,07,73,736/- under various heads.” It was further recorded that, “the Appellant has claimed an amount of Rs. 69.99 lakhs. The Appellant has already received almost double the amount claimed by her.” In the view of the above, the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in LPA 467/2017 dated 14th July, 2017, was modified by the Supreme Court vide Order dated 3rd December, 2018, to the extent that, the amount noted above, received by Ms. Saxena was to be treated as full and final settlement of all her claims. Resultantly, the Civil Appeals were dismissed with no order as to cost.

6. Ms. Saxena still did not give up. She filed an application for modification/ direction [Miscellaneous Application No. 845-846/2019]. This was dismissed as withdrawn vide Order dated 1st July, 2019. Thereafter, she filed another application seeking clarification/ direction [I.A. NO. 194775/2019]. The said application was held to be not maintainable and dismissed vide Order dated 14th February, 2020. She did not let the matter rest there and filed a Review Petition [Review Petition (Civil) Diary NO. 250/2020] wherein the Court, after considering the entirety of the matter, observed as under: “After considering the entirety of the matter including the issue related to non-compliance of Section 25(f)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, it was observed by this Court in the concluding part of the judgment and order dated 03.12.2018 as under: “5.4. The Appellant has admittedly received an amount of Rs. 1,07,73,736/- under various heads: Heads Amount Towards Notice period 1,77,684/ Severance Pay 6,39,387/ Gratuity 3,81,209/- Back wages pursuant to Execution 8,00,000/- Towards Interim Award 33,19,096/- Payments made under S.17B. 54,56,360/- The Appellant has claimed an amount of Rs. 69.99 lakhs. The Appellant has already received almost double the amount claimed by her.

6. In light of the discussion above, the afore-said amounts received by her may be treated as final settlement of all her claims. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench dated 14.07.2017 is modified to this extent.” We have gone through the Review Petitions and do not find error apparent on record to justify interference, Those Review Petitions are, therefore, dismissed on the grounds of delay as well as on merits.”

7. Thereafter, Ms. Saxena filed another application seeking direction to the Bank to release excess amount in her favour [CM APPL. 33275/2019 in W.P. (C) 11344/2009]. While considering this application, the learned Single Judge took note of the detailed judgment disposing of the writ petition, the Order passed in the LPA impugning the said judgment, and the Orders passed by the Supreme Court; then, finding no merit in the application, observed that the judicial process was being misused and public time being wasted. In these circumstances, dismissing the application, vide judgment dated 26th July, 2017, the learned Single Judge imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000/- on Ms. Saxena, directed to be paid to Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee. Further, the Registrar General was directed to recover the amount of cost in accordance with law.

8. The present appeal, since disposed of, was then preferred by the Ms. Saxena impugning the aforesaid judgment dated 26th July, 2017 [hereinafter referred to ‘the impugned judgment’]. On the first date of listing, the predecessor Bench of this Court vide Order dated 6th September, 2019 took note of the Orders of the Supreme Court and, inter alia, observed that, “(…) the amount referred to in the foregoing para are reflected in a table appearing in the Supreme Court order, which aggregate to Rs. 1,07,73,736/which has admittedly been received by the appellant.” Disposing of the appeal, the Court inter alia made the following observations: - “Counsel for the respondent contends that all disputes and differences between the parties arising from all matters therefore stand duly settled. He further submits that in light of the Supreme Court order, the bank has decided not to press any claim for the balance amount due from the petitioner towards her housing loan; and the bank also has no objection to the release of her title deeds. He submits that the bank is willing to stand by this position provided the appellant also gives a quietus to the matter. In view of the above, at this stage, the appellant submits that as the bank has decided to put a quietus to the matter and decided to release her title deeds without demanding any further sum towards her housing loan, she also agrees that all disputes and differences with the bank stand duly settled; and that she does not press this appeal. Parties submit that they have no claim against each other; and that title deeds be released in favour of the appellant. In view of the stand taken by both the parties, we modify the order of the learned Singh Judge only insofar as it relates to imposition of costs; while upholding the order otherwise. Title deeds be released in favour of the appellant within seven working days, on proper verification, without any notice to the bank. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.”

9. The cost imposed by the learned Single Judge stood waived. However, the matter still did not settle down. Ms. Saxena filed Review Petition [Review Pet. 509/2019] in LPA 578/2019 and sought review of Order dated 6th September, 2019, wherein the following observations were made: - “The review petitioner seeks review of order dated 06.09.2019 passed by a Division Bench of this court. The review petitioner, who appears in person submits that in the order, it has been incorrectly recorded that all the disputes and differences with the bank stand duly settled. We have drawn the attention of the review petitioner to paras 5.[4] and 6 of the decision dated 03.12.2018 rendered by the Supreme Court in Civil LPA 578/2019 Appeal Nos. 11766-11767 of 2018 (arising out of SLP No. 30205-30206 of 2017) titled Manju Saxena Vs Union of India & Anr. as per which she had admitted even before the Supreme Court, as she had also admitted before us, that she has received the amount of Rs.1,07,73,736/- as reflected in para 5.[4] of the judgment. To this, the petitioner however now submits that Rs.33,19,096/- has not been received by her. We have cautioned the petitioner as to the consequences of reneging on statements made repeatedly before different courts and of swearing a false affidavit and wasting the time of the court. She however insists that she wishes to argue further in the matter. Part arguments heard. List on 10.12.2019.”

10. Subsequently, vide judgment dated 10th December, 2019, this Court by a detailed Order, noting the entire background in the present case, held that, the Review Petition was misconceived, mala fide and filed with ulterior motives. The affidavit sworn by Ms. Saxena is false and valuable time of the Court was being wasted. In this context, while dismissing the Review Petition, the Court imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000/- which was directed to be deposited with the High Court of Delhi (Middle Income Group) Legal Aid Society. Further, Registrar General was directed to ensure that the cost was recovered from Ms. Saxena. The Bank was given an option to initiate forgery proceedings against Ms. Saxena for filing a false affidavit in this Court.

11. In terms of the directions given by this Court, the matter was put up before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) as Ms. Saxena had not placed on record the proof of deposit of cost. The Joint Registrar vide Order dated 15th January, 2020 issued court notice to the Ms. Saxena. She appeared and informed the court that she had preferred an SLP against the Orders dated 6th September, 2019, 6th December, 2019, and 10th December, 2019. Taking note of the same, on her request, the matter was directed to be re-listed on 8th May, 2020.

12. Thereafter, the SLP (Civil) Diary No. 7143/2020 (arising out of the impugned final judgment and Order dated 6th September, 2019 in LPA NO. 578/2019, 6th December, 2019 in RP No. 509/2019 and 10th December, 2019 in RP No. 509/2019 passed by this court) was listed and disposed of vide Order dated 13th July, 2020 in the following terms: - “1 Delay condoned.

2 We have heard the petitioner, who appears in person and Mr. Sanjay Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.