MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD Vs. VIJAY DAMODAR MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner Company is aggrieved by the Award of the Labour Court passed on 7.9.1995 in Reference (IDA) No. 493 of 1992 holding that the resignation tendered by the workman was under force and coercion and that the Company had followed some unfair labour practice against him. The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court directed the Petitioner Company to reinstate the workman with continuity of service w.e.f. 27.9.1991 without back wages.

(2.) THE Respondent workman was in the employment of the Petitioner -Company from 31.10.1966. Since then he also appears to have been promoted in the service from the post of Mazdoor to the post of Auto Mechanic. According to the workman his past service record was clean. It was the case of the workman that on 27.9.1991 the Company had obtained resignation from him forcibly and under coercion. According to him, he did not resign voluntarily from the employment of the company. The Respondent - workman therefore raised an industrial dispute demanding reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. The State Government referred the Industrial Dispute under S.10(1) read with S.12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Labour Court for adjudication. Both the parties completed their pleadings. According to the Petitioner -company, the Respondent workman had tendered his resignation voluntarily without any force or coercion, as alleged to avoid any police action against him in view of the incident occurred on 26.9.1991. According to the company, on that day the Respondent workman had committed theft of two copper hammer heads weighing 1.64 kgs. and he was caught red -handed trying to take away the said property of the company unlawfully. According to the company, the Respondent -workman had confessed the said incident in writing and had given his resignation voluntarily. The Petitioner company opposed grant of any relief to the Respondent workman in the aforesaid circumstances. The Respondent workman examined himself while the Petitioner company examined five witnesses. The Petitioner company also relied on the following documents: 1. Resignation letter of Shri V.D. Mehta 2. Confession statement of Shri V.D. Mehta

(3.) STATEMENT of Mr. S.P. Petwal, Havil - dar