EXTRUSION PROCESSES LIMITED Vs. GAFURBHAI AHMEDBHAI MALEK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed by the petitioner against the judgment and award dated 19.2.91 passed by the Labour court at Baroda whereby the labour court has directed for reinstatement of the respondent workman with backwages.

(2.) The short facts of the present case are that the respondent workman was working with the petitioner on daily wage basis at the rate of Rs.11.50ps per day. It is the case of the respondent workman that on 12.2.82 when he was going outside the gate at the time the watchman Abdulbhai had asked him to bring plastic and therefore he had brought the plastic from the factory, but it is the say of the respondent workman that the watchman had wrongly levelled the allegation of theft upon him and the respondent workman was asked to go to the Plant Manager and at that time the Plant Manager and other staff of the petitioner company had compelled him to writ the apology letter and his resignation letter was also obtained. It is the case of the respondent workman that on 24.2.82 he had addressed a letter to the petitioner company intimating that the resignation is obtained under duress and compulsion and therefore the same may be treated as cancelled and he had also demanded in the said letter that he should be reinstated in service with backwages. Thereafter, a dispute was raised by the respondent workman under Industrial Disputes Act and ultimately the same came to be referred to the labour court for adjudication being Ref (LCV) No.216/82.

(3.) Before the labour court, the respondent workman had submitted the statement of claim on the same line as referred to hereinabove. However, on behalf of the petitioner company the reply was submitted contending that the application is not maintainable and it was also contended that the resignation was voluntarily tendered and therefore the same is not maintainable. The labour court had tried the reference and after hearing both sides the labour court had at para 7 of the award found that it has not come on record that the resignation was written by the workman under duress or coercion and however the labour court found that the workman was not communicated regarding acceptance of the resignation and therefore prior to such intimation the workman had a right to withdraw the resignation and therefore the labour court found that since the resignation was cancelled by the workman the petitioner company ought to have reinstated the workman in service and having not done so the action is illegal and therefore the workman is entitled to reinstatement in service with full backwages. The labour court ultimately passed the award and directed for reinstatement of the workman with full backwages. It is this award which is under challenge in this petition.