(1.) THE petitioner employer is aggrieved by the impugned Award dated 11th August, 1997 passed by the Labour Court in Reference I. D. A. No. 988 of 1995 to adjudicate the industrial dispute raised by the respondent workman for reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages with effect from 5th January, 1994.
(2.) BOTH the parties appeared before the Labour Court after the order of reference was given by the State Government under section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Both the parties filed their pleadings and adduced their oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective pleadings. By the impugned Award, the Labour Court directed the petitioner employer to pay a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- by way of compensation in lieu of relief of reinstatement.
(3.) BRIEFLY stated the dispute between the parties was whether the respondent workman had tendered his resignation voluntarily or was forced to resign from employment by the petitioner company. It appears that the respondent workman was appointed first in the year 1978 and thereafter it appears that the employment was discontinued and he was again reappointed on and from 11th December, 1982. According to the respondent workman, he had not voluntarily resigned from employment with effect from 17th December, 1993. He pleaded that his signatures were taken on some blank papers. It appears that in the branch office where the workman was employed, according to the petitioner, the entire staff was involved in an en mass fraud committed by all of them collectively to the tune of Rs. 21 lakhs. The said fraud was committed by all the staff members including the Manager of the branch. The Police Investigation on the complaint by the petitioner were initiated against all the staff members. It appears that the name of the respondent workman was not taken in the F. I. R. He was working as a peon in the branch office. It appears that he tendered his resignation on 17th December 1993. It appears that the perpetrators of the collective fraud, all staff members, had resigned from the employment. It appears that they had refunded a part of the amount and some goods. The petitioner company accepted the resignation of the present respondent along with resignation letters of the others. The respondent was informed by a letter dated 22nd December, 1993 that his resignation was accepted. Thereafter, it appears that in April 1995, he for the first time, raised a demand for reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service alleging that his services were terminated orally by the petitioner. The petitioner had contested the dispute and contended that the respondent workman had voluntarily resigned under his hand by a letter dated 17th December, 1993 and that he was duly communicated by a letter dated 22nd December, 1993 that his resignation was accepted. It was further contended that as late as in April 1995, the respondent raised the industrial dispute falsely alleging that his services were terminated and that his signatures were taken on blank papers and that they were used as resignation and that he had not voluntarily resigned. As stated by me earlier, both the parties had adduced oral and documentary evidence. The Labour Court by the impugned Award has gone through the entire evidence and accepted the case of the petitioner that the respondent workman had signed the resignation letter which was accepted by the petitioner. The Labour Court also observed that the conduct of the workman in raising industrial dispute after 15 months was not like a man of ordinary prudence. The Labour Court also observed that even in the demand letter he had not made out any case that the company had obtained his signature on the blank papers and that they were used fraudulently as his resignation letter. The Labour Court appears to have considered the entire evidence on record and further concluded that hand writing of the entire resignation letter was in the same ink and was the same and that there was no difference in the writing. The Labour Court further recorded that the workman had admitted the signature on the resignation letter and therefore, the burden was on him to prove that it was obtained by other employees of the company on blank papers and subsequently the company has used it as his resignation. The Labour Court has also found that the resignation letter was accepted by the petitioner company and the same was communicated to him. The Labour Court has also observed that the workman had at no point of time had complained before any authority that his signature was fraudulently used and that his such signature was obtained on a blank paper or that his resignation was forcibly obtained.