KIRLOSHAR ELECTRIC CO LTD Vs. DAYANANDA BENGRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a pathetic case which reflects as to how the legal Representatives (young widow and a minor child) of the deceased workman, who submitted his resignation on 27-9-1995 offering himself to resign with effect from 30-11-1995 was permitted to continue in service till 6-12-1995, on which day he withdrew his resignation; but, thereafter on 6-12-1995 after the working hours the Management accepted the resignation and sent it by post relieving him from service after the working hours of 6-12-1995 i. e. , with effect from 7-12-1995, are dragged from pillar to post even to receive the minimum reasonable compensation of Rs. l,00,000/- in lumpsum, as the employee died during the pendency of the writ petition.

(2.) THE appellant management has preferred the present appeal against the order dated 3rd october, 2007 (reported in 2007 (6) AIR Kar r 641) of the learned single Judge made in writ Petition No. 38507/2003, where the appellant-management had challenged the award dated 16-5-2003 in A. I. D. No. 335/ 2001 on the file of the Additional Industrial tribunal, Bangalore, under the following facts and circumstances of the case.

(3.) BEFORE the learned single Judge, the management, relying on the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of North Zone cultural Centre v. Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar reported in 2003-II-LLJ Supreme Court 839 : (AIR 2003 SC 2719) contended that the resignation became effective on acceptance and its non-communication did not render it inoperative. 3. 1. 1 On the other hand, on behalf of the workman it was contended that the Tribunal has held that the resignation was accepted only after the working hours on 6-12-1995 i. e. , from 7-12-1995. It was further contended that even the management witness admitted that the resignation would come into effect only from the date on which the workman receives the communication, and therefore, resignation becomes operative only on the date of communication of acceptance of the resignation. 3. 1. 2 Accordingly, it was contended on behalf of the workman that while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of india, it may not be proper for this court to re-appreciate the evidence placed before the Tribunal and the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has to be limited only to cases where there is an error apparent on the face of the record. It was also brought to notice of the learned single Judge that pending writ petition, the workman died.