THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, NEEDLE INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD., KETTI Vs. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, COIMBATORE AND C. MURUGESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner company, seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent in I.D.No.323 of 1994 and quash the same has filed this writ petition.

(2.) In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would submit that it is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and is engaged in the manufacture of needles; that the second respondent herein was working as Unskilled Grade -II Workman in the petitioner company from 1.1.1974 and he submitted his resignation to the Works Manager of the petitioner company on 9.6.1992 on ground that he was unable to come to work continuously on account of ill -health; that the resignation was recommended by the Works Manager and accepted w.e.f. 9.6.1992 with intimation to the second respondent that day itself further advising him to contact the Accounts Division for settlement of his accounts on 19.6.1992; that though he came on 9.6.1992, the second respondent did not report to work, which is evident from the non punching of the time card; that however, since the second respondent remained absent from 6.6.1992, he was relieved from service w.e.f. 5.6.1992, the last day that he reported for work.

(3.) The petitioner would further submit that subsequently, the second respondent issued a telegram on 11.6.1992 followed by a letter dated 13.6.1992 alleging certain charges against the Works Manager and this letter was reviewed by the Senior Vice President of the petitioner company and a reply was sent on 16.6.1992 and on being satisfied that there was no coercion or threat in obtaining the resignation of the second respondent, the Senior Vice President of the petitioner company accepted the resignation of the petitioner; that thereafter, the second respondent submitted a petition on 26.6.1992 to the Senior Manager Personnel of the petitioner company requesting revocation of his resignation and the Senior Personnel Manager, explaining the second respondent that his request could not be complied with, had rejected the application of the second respondent workman dated 26.6.1992, by his order dated 2.7.1992; that the second respondent, however stating that he is entitled to withdraw his resignation letter before the expiry of 15 days notice period, by his letter dated 24.12.1992, has requested the management to reconsider his resignation, which was rejected by the management by letter dated 31.12.1992 and thereafter, the second respondent raised an industrial dispute before the first respondent in I.D.No.323 of 1994 and the first respondent would conduct a thorough enquiry into the matter, wherein on behalf of the workman, the workman besides examining himself as P.W.1 would also examine two more witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3 for oral evidence and would mark nine documents for documentary evidence and on behalf of the Management, they would examine one witness for oral evidence as M.W.1 and would mark 10 documents for documentary evidence; that the workman, as W.W.1 before the Labour Court clearly explained that there was no force or coercion by the Management in getting the resignation of the second respondent/workman, but the first respondent, passed the impugned award dated 27.11.1996, thereby ordering the reinstatement of the workman with 50% backwages and with continuity of service. Aggrieved, the petitioner/Management has come forward to file the above writ petition with the prayers extracted supra.