WP/1572/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1572 OF 2010 Vighnahar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Pune ... Petitioner V/s. Lata Balu Shinde & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. K.M. Naik with Mr. Sujeet Salkar for the Petitioner. Mr. Jaydeep S. Deo for Respondent No.1. CORAM: SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 14 TH SEPTEMBER, 2010. P.C. : 1. This Writ Petition has come up for admission and challenges the order of the Labour Court, Pune dated 18th July, 2008 passed in Complaint (ULP) No.93 of 2005 and of the Industrial Court, Pune dated 18th December, 2009 passed in Revision Application (ULP) No.75 of 2008, confirming the order of the Labour Court. 2. Both the Courts below have found, as a matter of fact, that the contention of the respondent No.1 that she was forced to tender a resignation letter has been proved. Both WP/1572/2010 2 the Courts below have found that the circumstances surrounding the submission of the alleged resignation letter point to the fact that the resignation was forced. 3. The Courts below have found that the respondent No.1 was able to read and write Marathi despite which the letter of resignation was written by the witness of the Management who was the Guest House in-charge where the respondent No.1 was working as a “Cook”. This witness has stated that the signature of the Managing Director was obtained immediately after the alleged resignation letter was written. It was endorsed by the Guest House in-charge only thereafter, which was not the usual practice adopted by the Management while accepting a letter of resignation of the workman. According to the Management, i.e. the petitioner herein, the reason for tendering the resignation was that the respondent No.1 required money urgently in order to pay off certain amounts that had allegedly been misappropriated by her son in what was known as the Kalpataru scam. Both the Courts below have found that this theory of the petitioner is not supported by the circumstances on record in as much as had the respondent No.1 being in urgent need of money, she would have certainly WP/1572/2010 3 accepted her Gratuity and other legal dues. The Courts below have found that these dues have not been tendered to the respondent No.1 and are still with the petitioner. 4. In my view, when two Courts have concurrently held that this is a forced resignation, there is no need to interfere in the orders passed by both the Courts below. There is no perversity in these orders which requires to be interfered with by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. The Writ Petition is rejected.