HEMANT GOVIND VAIDYA Vs. VASANT DADA SUGAR INSTITUTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the above writ petition to challenge the order of the Industrial Court at Pune passed on 5-9-1989 whereby the petitioners complaint of Unfair Labour Practice was dismissed.

(2.) THE facts are in a very narrow parameters. The petitioner was appointed by the respondent Institute on 2-11-1984 as an Instrumental Mechanic. By his letter dated 7-7-1986 he tendered his resignation and requested the Institute to treat the same as three months notice and to pay him the legal dues. On receipt of the said letter of resignation the respondent - Institute wrote back to the petitioner on 21/24-7-1986 that his resignation was accepted with immediate effect and that his legal dues would be paid, if any, in the office. The petitioner appears to have been aggrieved by the acceptance of his resignation with immediate effect and not on the expiry of three months notice. He, therefore, filed a complaint of Unfair Labour Practice under Item 1 (b) (f) of Schedule IV of the M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act ). He based his complaint of Unfair Labour Practice on the ground that if at all he was to resign that was effective after three months and since the respondent Institute had accepted his resignation with immediate effect it has brought about his termination from employment prematurely and, therefore, it was an Unfair Labour Practice within the meaning of Items 1 (b) and (f) of Schedule IV of the Act. It was his contention that within the period of three months he had a right to withdraw his resignation and, therefore, the respondent Institute had no right to accept his resignation with immediate effect. He succeeded in satisfying the Labour Court to hold that the action of accepting the resignation earlier than the expiry period of notice amounted to an Unfair Labour Practice as contemplated by Item 1 (b) and (f) of the Act. The Labour Court therefore, directed the respondent-Institute to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages and continuity of service.

(3.) THE said Order was carried by the respondent Institute in Revision under section 44 of the Act before the Industrial Court. The learned member of the Industrial Court considering all the facts and circumstances and the case law cited before him, came to a different conclusion and allowed the Revision Application and quashed and set aside the order of reinstatement passed by the Labour Court. It however, remanded the matter back to the Labour Court only for the purpose of sanction of legal dues payable to the petitioner. The Labour Court after remand held that the petitioner was entitled to get wages earned during the period 1-7-1986 to 27-7-1986 and also encashment of leave for 50 days. The other claims were rejected by the Labour Court. The learned member of the Industrial Court has accepted the contention of the respondent Institute that at the most the acceptance of the resignation prematurely would amount to an illegality but not an Unfair Labour Practice. The learned Industrial Court has specifically recorded in paragraph 20 that the petitioners evidence showed that he was not interested in reinstatement but only in legal dues. This finding of the Industrial Court was not specifically controverted in the petition initially though an attempt is made in the petition to show that he was interested in reinstatement also. Even from the prayers in the complaint, which are reproduced in the writ petition it is clear that there is no specific prayer of reinstatement in the complaint. The prayer only says that he should be granted full back wages upto the date of decision and all other legal dues. A specific prayer of reinstatement in service which is substantial one is conspicuously absent in the prayers. Read with the prayers of the complaint the Industrial Court has also referred to the oral evidence of the petitioner and has come to a positive finding that since the relief of reinstatement was not prayed it could not have been granted. It is also significant to note that even in the letter of resignation the petitioner had specifically stated" I am not in a position to continue my services. " The learned Labour Court has reproduced the said resignation letter which was exhibited as Exhibit 21 and which is reproduced in para 8 of his judgment. It is therefore clear that he did not contemplate reinstatement in service and according to me, the findings given by the Industrial Court cannot be faulted with that the petitioner was not interested in reinstatement but only in his legal dues which were not paid.