- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.347 OF 2008 PETITION NO.347 OF 2008 PETITION NO.347 OF 2008 Shri Namdeo Pandurang Patil ...Petitioner vs. Gold Mohur Mills & Anr. ...Respondents Ms Shobhana Gopal for the petitioner Mr.Avinash Jaisatgi for the respondent Mr.P.M.Palsikar,A.G.P. for State. CORAM CORAM CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : APRIL 1,2008 : APRIL 1,2008 : APRIL 1,2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. The petitioner filed an application under section 78 and 79 read with section 42 of Bombay Industrial Relations Act,1946. The case of the Petitioner was that the he was employed in Weaving Department of the first Respondent-Mill with effect from 20th June 1978. There was a strike in the entire textile mill industry in the year 1981. According to him, he did not participate in the strike. According to his case, when he tried to report for work, he was not allowed the entry by the police. Even according to the case of the Petitioner, before the closure of the strike, the mill was closed and the mill was taken over in the year 1983 by the National Textile Corporation. 2. The case of the Petitioner is that two months thereafter, he tried to report for work at the gate and was told to come - 2 - after two days but still the company was closed. According to the case of the Petitioner, he never received any communication from the first Respondent. A letter of termination of the employment was never served to the Petitioner. His case is that the workers junior to him were taken in the employment in phase wise manner after reopening of the mills. The contention of the Petitioner was that he was not served with the notice of termination or show cause notice or charge sheet. According to him an Approach letter was served by him on 10th April 1997. Therefore, a prayer was made for direction to the first Respondent to reinstate him in service and to pay wages from the year 1982 onwards. 3. Written statement was filed by the first Respondent. The first Respondent admitted that the letter of approach dated 10th April 1987 was served. However, the contention is that the alleged approach letter does not satisfy the requirement of section 42 (4) of the said Act read with Rule 53 of the Rules framed under the said Act of 1946.It was pointed out that the Petitioner had not reported on duty from 18th January 1982 and had approached the court after 17 years. It was submitted that the approach letter dated 10th April 1987 is obviously barred by time. It was submitted that as the Petitioner did not report to work from 18th January 1982, his services came to an end. - 3 - 4. The learned Judge of the Labour Court, Mumbai dismissed the application. The learned Judge held that the resignation dated 29th May 1986 submitted by the Petitioner has been duly proved and the documentary evidence on record shows that after the resignation, the Petitioner has accepted his provident fund and other dues. The learned Judge also held that as a result of the resignation tendered in the year 1986, no cause of action arose in the year 1997 to send approach Notice. The learned Judge also held that there is no evidence on record to show that the Petitioner was continuously reporting duty till the year 1997. In an Appeal preferred by the Petitioner, the President of the Industrial Court has confirmed the Judgment and Order dated 7th March 2008. 5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the resignation letter has not been proved and what has been proved is only the signature on the alleged letter of resignation. She submitted that the Petitioner was illiterate person and unless the contents of the resignation letter are proved, the same cannot be relied upon as the letter of resignation. Inviting my attention to the deposition of the witness Mr.Popat Pawar, she submitted that the said witness could not identify the signature of the petitioner on the receipt/acknowlegement of payment of provident fund in the year 1986. She submitted that the courts below have committed an error by holding that the petitioner has tendered a - 4 - resignation and has thereafter accepted his dues. 6. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusal of the notes of evidence and impugned Judgments and order, I find that no case is made out for interference under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The Courts below have found that the signature on the letter of resignation dated 29th May 1986 has been duly proved. The Petitioner was confronted by showing the resignation letter in his cross examination and signature on the resignation letter has been admitted. The witness examined by the first Respondent Shri Popat Pawar may not have identified the signature of the Petitioner but the said witness has produced the original receipt along with concerned page from the register maintained showing the disbursement of the amount of the provident fund. Not only the receipt, but the entry in the register maintained in regular course of business shows that the Petitioner had received the provident fund amount. 7. Considering the fact that the findings records by the courts below are based on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, no interference is called for in the petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India. No perversity is shown. There is no merit in the Petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. - 5 - JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE