HIND MOTORS LIMITED, PLOT NO 09, INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE I, CHANDIGARH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, U T OF CHANDIGARH, SECTOR 18, MADHYA MARG, CHANDIGARH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 04.09.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, U.T., Chandigarh, wherein the reference has been answered in favour of the workman holding him entitled to reinstatement in service with lump-sum amount of Rs. 40,000/- in lieu of back wages.

(2.) I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case as well as the impugned award.

(3.) A perusal of the award would show that the resignation was submitted by the workman on 07.01.2002, copy whereof is exhibited as M-2. The assertion of the workman is that the resignation was obtained through force and under undue influence and coercion . It has come on record that the services could be dispensed with by the Management by giving one month's notice or in case, the workman wanted to leave the job, he was also required to give one month's notice or in lieu thereof, he was required to deposit one month's pay. He was further required to submit his identity card and was to obtain a clearance certificate. These requirements i.e. with regard to submission of the original identity card, pay in lieu of the notice period, was not submitted by the workman to the Management. Even the Clearance Certificate was not obtained by the workman, nor was it granted by the Management. It has come on record that the original identity card, which was valid up to December, 2002, was with the workman as he had produced the same as Ex. W-3 before the Labour Court. No pay in lieu of the notice period was got deposited from the workman nor was the same waived by the Management while accepting the resignation nor has this been asserted by the Management. The Management has itself produced the Clearance Certificate, which is in original, but that does not bear the signatures of the workman. The workman has also asserted and has proved that he had visited the office of the petitioner-Management on 08.01.2002 and made a request to the Management Personnel to return his resignation and allow him to join his duties. He also met the Executive Director on 11.01.2002 along with his brother and narrated the whole incident. The workman has produced on record the letter written by him on 11.01.2002 through registered A.D., wherein he had stated that the resignation letter dated 07.01.2002 be treated as cancelled. All this go to show that the resignation of the workman was not voluntary.