BALBIR SINGH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT ROHTAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition the workman is challenging the award of the Labour Court dated March 23, 1985. According to the petitioner, he was in the employment of respondent No. 2. On April 1, 1974 he gave an application, copy of which is Annexure P/2, requesting that he is suffering from stomach disease for the last two years and because of the same his eye-sight is being affected. He, therefore, prayed for leave for six months from April 8, 1974 subject to the entitlement thereof. It was further prayed that if that was not possible, this resignation may be accepted "conditional". No decision was conveyed to the petitioner. According to the petitioner he went on applying leave after the period was over. By letter dated June 15, 1974, copy Annexure P/3, the petitioner was directed to hand over the charge. The, petitioner has contended in statement of claim, copy Annexure P/5, that he again sent an application for extension of leave upto May 8, 1975. That application was given on October 4, 1974. It is contended that he again applied for leave for further period of six months of May 5, 1975. The written statement to the statement of claim is at Annexure P/7 in this case. The above contentions of the petitioner are made in para 3 of the statement of claim. In reply to the said paragraph in the written statement it has been stated that the petitioner had no right to move the application because he had already submitted his resignation. The petitioner further contends that he reported for duty on March 15, 1976. However, by letter dated March 15, 1976 (copy Annexure P/4), he was informed that by resolution dated March 9, 1976, his resignation was accepted from April 9, 1976 afternoon. Petitioner raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court. The dispute referred to the Labour Court is as under:

(2.) The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the real dispute between the parties has not been referred to the Court for adjudication and there is a clear cut plea by the respondent that there was no termination of services. The Labour Court found that the case of the respondent is that the workman voluntarily submitted his resignation, which was accepted retrospectively with effect from April 9, 1974 (the date should be April 9, 1976) and the reference made to the Court is about the justification of the termination of the service and, therefore, it came to the conclusion that the controversy was beyond the terms of reference. It also held that government had made the reference without applying its mind and because of the same an ailing and humble employee of the respondent has been put to unnecessary harassment.

(3.) Sympathies apart, the question to be decided is whether the reference made was proper or not. If the plea of resignation is accepted, reference was not proper. However, otherwise the case will be termination of service and the plea of the petitioner can be accepted. If the plea of resignation is accepted, reference can be held to be proper. In the present case, the first letter of resignation Annexure P/2 is a conditional letter. The first prayer is for leave for six months and the resignation is tendered in the alternative. The petitioner was not conveyed for a long time, decision on either of his request. Moreover, from the statement of claim Annexure P/5, it is clear that the petitioner has referred to two applications i.e. dated October 4, 1974 and May 5, 1975 for extension of leave. Giving of these applications is not controverted, counsel for the respondent has relied on the case of Mohd. Sadiq Nargal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir 1997 (2) SCT 483 in which it has been held that government employee can withdraw his resignation before it is accepted by the competent authority only where he remains in service awaiting acceptance of the resignation but where he, acting on his own volition unilaterally abandons the post and service and after putting in his resignation stays away from duty, he is not entitled to withdraw it at any time. The facts of the present case are completely different. Here the petitioner has given an application for leave and in the alternative if the leave was not possible, he tendered his conditional resignation.