CHARMENDRA KUMAR JAIN Vs. SAKA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Award dtd. 28/6/2000 passed by the Labour Court-I Jaipur in LCR No. 128/1993, whereby reference has been answered against the petitioner, has been put to challenge by the petitioner by way of filing the instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. He has further prayed that respondents may be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with effect from 30/3/1989 with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The petitioner has come out with a case that vide order dtd. 22/5/1986, he was appointed as Service Technician on Probation basis w.e.f. 5/5/1986 in respondent-company where his services were confirmed on completion of Probation period. Thereafter, he was promoted on the post of Senior External Engineer in May 1988. The petitioner further stated that all of a sudden, on account of being scummed to the pressure of higher authority he tendered his resignation on 29/3/1989. In the resignation letter dtd. 29/3/1989, the Assistant Manager was refused to accept the petitioner's resignation for the service of the organisation w.e.f. 29/3/1989 due to his personal reasons and the Branch Manager there also to settle his account at the earliest. On the same day, the Branch Manager sent the resignation letter forwarded to the Competent Authority for formal acceptance and releaving with a further request to serve the notice period. The petitioner has contended in the writ petition that immediately on the next date, he sent one letter dtd. 30/3/1989 requesting therein that the Branch Manager recalling to treat his resignation as cancelled as he was compelled to submit his resignation under pressure. The aforesaid letter dtd. 30/3/1989 is stated to have been sent through UPC (Under Postal Certificate), the petitioner further submits that ignoring his letter dtd. 30/3/1989, vide letter dtd. 9/4/1989 the authorised signatory of respondent-company accepted his resignation w.e.f. 29/3/1989 by waiving the notice period on request made by the petitioner himself. Petitioner has also submitted that thereafter being of the petitioner-Shri Dharmendra Kumar Jain also requested the AGM (C&D) to respondent No. 2 that resignation dtd. 29/3/1989 was given in hottest by the petitioner whereas he was not willing to resign and want to serve the respondent-company, therefore, he may be reinstated in case and thereafter his son would work with devotion with the company.

(3.) Without nothing was done, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute under the Provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the ID Act of 1947') and vide notification dtd. 19/4/1993 the appropriate government sent the reference to the Labour Court Jaipur, for adjudication. As per the terms of the reference as to whether termination of the services of petitioner by the respondents w.e.f. 30/3/1989 was valid or not and, if not, the workman was entitled to what relief and monetary benefits. It is stated by the petitioner in the memo of writ petition that he filed but in pursuance to the aforesaid, he submitted his claim for declaring his termination order dtd. 30/3/1990 as invalid and illegal with a further direction to the respondents-company to reinstate the petitioner to back in service including monetary benefits. By filing reply to the statement of claim, the respondentcompany opposed the relief. Thereafter, impugned award dtd. 28/6/2000 was passed by the Labour Court-I Jaipur, answering the reference against the petitioner, hence, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.