PHULORA PRINTERS Vs. ANKUSH SITARAM SAWANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition challenges an award dated 23 Feb. 2006 passed by the Labour Court at Mumbai on a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act.

(2.) Since 1989, the Respondent was working for the Petitioner. In 1990, he was made permanent. In 1996, he started working as a printer on a monthly salary of Rs.3,000/. It is his case that on 1 June 1996, whilst on duty, the Manager of the Petitioner, one Mr. Wadekar, called him to the office and asked him to tender his resignation. It is the Respondent's case that he was threatened with dire consequences if he did not resign. Accordingly, the Respondent claims to have had no alternative but to tender his resignation on 11 June 1996. The resignation was accepted by the Petitioner on 19 Jan. 1997. On 25 Aug. 1999, the Respondent approached the Petitioner with a demand for reinstatement. Since the demand was not accepted, the Respondent applied to the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation) for adjudication of the industrial dispute, whereupon a reference was submitted to the Labour Court at Mumbai. Both parties led evidence before the Labour Court. By its impugned order dated 23 Feb. 2006, the Labour Court accepted the Respondent's case that his resignation was obtained by the Petitioner under duress and without his volition. The Labour Court held that the Respondent was, in the premises, retrenched without following due process of law. The Labour Court held the Respondent to be entitled to the relief of full back wages and continuity of service. Accordingly, the reference was answered in the affirmative and the Petitioner was directed to reinstate the Respondent with continuity of service and full back wages. The award dated 23 Feb. 2006 was duly published on 28 June 2006.

(3.) It is the case of the Petitioner that the impugned award is totally perverse and unsustainable. The Respondent has tendered his resignation on 1 June 1996 and never offered himself for service thereafter. It is submitted that the resignation was formally accepted on 19 Jan. 1997. It is submitted that for the first time a demand was made for reinstatement on 25 Aug. 1999. It is submitted that there is nothing on record to indicate by way of a contemporaneous piece of evidence to show that the Respondent either contended that his resignation was not voluntary or that he applied for reinstatement at any time prior to 25 Aug. 1999. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of North Zone Cultural Centre Vs. Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar, 2003 II CLR 376. Based on this judgment, he submits that any resignation takes effect on its acceptance at any time before its withdrawal.