SATISHCHANDRA VALLABHBHAI VASHI Vs. GARDEN SILK MILLS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Shukla, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate for the respondent company.

(2.) The petitioner workman has brought under challenge judgment and order against the learned Industrial Court in Appeal (IC) No.18 of 2000 whereby the learned Industrial Court (i.e. learned first appellate Court) quashing the order dtd. 12/7/2000 passed by the learned Labour Court in T Application No.987 of 1987. By its order the learned Labour Court had directed the company to reinstate the respondent with 80% backwages on the ground that the resignation tendered by the workman was withdrawn and since any order accepting the resignation was not passed and/or was not conveyed or served to the workman, the withdrawal of resignation should have been permitted. The said judgment by the learned Labour Court is set aside by the learned Industrial Court on the ground that in light of the evidence available on record which brought out that the resignation was accepted on the very same day when it was tendered and it was accepted in presence of the workman and that, therefore, the withdrawal of resignation was an afterthought and the said evidence was not taken into account by the learned Labour Court. On such ground, the learned Industrial Court set aside the judgment passed by the learned Labour Court. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned Industrial Court. Hence present petition.

(3.) So far as the factual aspects are concerned, most of the facts, i.e. except the facts related to acceptance and withdrawal of resignation, are not in dispute. From the record and from the submissions by learned advocate for the petitioner, it has emerged that after the petitioner was relieved by the respondent company pursuant to the resignation tendered by the petitioner, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute and demanded reinstatement in service with consequential benefits. The said application seeking reinstatement was not accepted by the respondent company and therefore, the petitioner filed T application before the learned Labour Court with a prayer that the company may be directed to reinstate him. In the said T application which was registered as T Application No.486 of 1987, the petitioner workman alleged, inter alia, that he was working with the company since March 1981. The petitioner workman had tendered resignation dtd. 11/6/1987 which, according to the respondent company, was accepted in his presence on the very same day, i.e. on 11/6/1987. However, subsequently, i.e. after about 7-8 days, the petitioner workman addressed a letter dtd. 18/6/1987 to the respondent company wherein the petitioner alleged that his resignation was not tendered voluntarily but he was forced to submit the resignation and that therefore, he withdraws the resignation. The said allegation and the respondent's decision to withdraw the resignation was not accepted by the company on the ground that the resignation was sub submitted voluntarily and it was accepted on the same day when it was tendered i.e. on 11/6/1987 and that therefore, the service had come to an end and the petitioner had no right or locus to withdraw the resignation after its acceptance. Feeling aggrieved by the said decision of the company, the petitioner workman filed above mentioned T application. After recording evidence and considering the submissions by learned advocates for the contesting parties, the learned Labour Court reached to the conclusion that the company had not passed any specific and separate order accepting the resignation and relieving the workman and that therefore, the petitioner had right in law to withdraw the resignation and the respondent company failed to appreciate and accept the said right of the petitioner and committed error in rejecting his request to withdraw the resignation. Having reached such conclusion, learned Labour Court passed the judgment dtd. 12/7/2000 and partly allowed the T application No.486 of 1987. The learned Labour Court directed the respondent company to reinstate the petitioner workman with 60% backwages and continuity of service. Aggrieved by the said decision, the company filed appeal before the learned industrial Court. The appeal was registered as Appeal (IC) No.18 of 2000. The learned Industrial Court heard the parties and considered the material on record. The learned industrial Court found that the learned Labour Court failed to take into consideration cogent and relevant evidence available on record, more particularly the evidence which demonstrated that the resignation was accepted by the concerned authority on the said day when it was tendered i.e. on 11/6/1987 itself and that the learned Labour Court's decision was erroneous and contrary to evidence available on record. Having reached such conclusion, the learned Industrial Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment dtd. 12/7/2000 passed by the learned Labour Court. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment dtd. 17/1/2003 passed by the learned Industrial Court in Appeal No.18 of 2000, the petitioner workman has filed present petition.