TARUN ENGINEERING WORKS Vs. U D RATHOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Special Civil Application is filed by the petitioners, Messrs Tarun Engineering Works and Gujarat Stamping & Pressing Pvt. Ltd., challenging the award dated 6.10.1999, passed by the Labour Court, Nadiad in Reference (LCN) No.41 of 1994. The learned Judge by the impugned award ordered reinstatement of the respondent workman from the date he was relieved from the service with full back wages and cost of Rs.1000.00. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent workman was working with petitioner no.1, Tarun Engineering Works at the relevant time. He submitted his resignation on 25.10.1993. A copy of letter of resignation is produced at Annexure 'A', page 18, which is exhibit no.10/1, on which there is an endorsement reading,

(2.) Thereafter petitioner no.1 received a letter, as it happens in several cases, dated 18.11.1993, by Registered Post A.D., a copy of which is produced at Annexure 'D', page 21, wherein it is stated in the subject:

(3.) It is also required to be noted that thereafter a copy of the notice given by the Union is produced at Annexure 'E', page 22, which is dated 2.12.1993. It is given by Gujarat Audyogik Kamdar Maha Mandal. Para 4 of said notice states that the resignation was obtained from the respondent workman on 9.11.1993, under coercion and threats and the same is withdrawn by Registered Post A.D. letter dated 18.11.1993. Interestingly, the next para says that "the services of the respondent workman were terminated by an oral order on 18.11.1993 without giving any notice or wages in lieu thereof and without following any legal procedure." Thereafter, as usual the matter was taken up for adjudication in labour forum and a statement of claim came to be filed, a copy of which is produced at Annexure 'I', page 30, wherein the respondent workman comes out with an altogether a new story than the earlier one, by stating in para 5 that on 20.11.1993 the management got his resignation under coercion and threats and that he withdrew the said resignation by writing a letter dated 18.11.1993. Even after giving the benefit for an inadvertent error it is not possible to reconcile the totally inconsistent story put forward by the workman. Surprisingly when the respondent workman stepped in for deposition before the Labour Court, he deposed that his resignation was obtained under threats on 10.11.1993 and that he had withdrawn the same on 18.11.1993 and that he is not paid any amount towards his rights. In cross examination he was confronted with exh.10/1, i.e. resignation letter dated 25.10.1993, for which he deposed that exh.10/1, is shown to me; in that signatures are mine and the signatures are in English. He further deposed that exh.10/2 is shown to me and it bears my short signature as an acknowledgment of having received the letter. He further deposed that, "it is true that on 4.11.1993 I was on job" (4.11.1993 is the date on which it is the case of the petitioner management that dues were paid to the respondent management). He has further deposed that, "I am shown exh.10/3 which bears my signature, but then my signature was obtained on a blank voucher." It is also deposed that, "on 1.11.1993 I was relieved and I was denied the work by an oral order"; that, "I was on duty on 21.10.1993"; about exh.10/3, blank voucher, "I have not filed any Police complaint or any other complaint." He deposed that, "exh.10/4 is shown to me and that bears my signature, but the contents are not written by me." He thereafter deposed that, "the contents are in my own hand writing." (emphasis supplied)