THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION Nos.21665 OF 2001 AND 1630 OF 2002 Date: 09.08.2011 W.P.No.21665 of 2001: Between: M/s. Automotive Manufacturers Limited, Rashtrapathi Road, Secunderabad, rep. by its General Manager Sri T.R.Ganesh Aiyer …..Petitioner And The Labour Court, Anantapur, Rep. by its Presiding Officer and another …..Respondents W.P.No.1630 of 2002: Between: B. Prabhakar …..Petitioner And The Branch Manager, M/s. Automotive Manufacturers Limited, Santhoshnagar Colony, N.H.7, Kurnool Town and District and another …..Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION Nos.21665 OF 2001 AND 1630 OF 2002 COMMON ORDER: Both these writ petitions, one filed by the employer and the other by the workman, arise out of the same award and therefore, they can be disposed of by this common order. 2. Before I set out the points that arise for the determination in these writ petitions, it would be necessary to note the circumstances under which they came to be filed and they are these. One B.Prabhakar, (hereinafter wards referred to as workman) petitioner in the writ petition No.1630 of 2002, earlier worked as a Clerk in M/s. Automotive Manufacturers Limited at Kurnool (hereinafter wards referred to as employer) and it is the petitioner in the writ petition No.21665 of 2001. The workman was first appointed by the employer in May, 1991 in its organisation and he worked as a Clerk and was also promoted as Senior Clerk in its spare parts department. Later on the employer by its order dated 5-6-1996 transferred him from the spare parts department to oil and tools department in its organisation. 3. It is seen that the workman had some problem or trouble to work in the oil and tools department. He therefore addressed a letter dated 8-6- 1996 to the Branch Manager of the employer at Kurnool informing him that he cannot work in the oil and tools department and that the employer has transferred him to that department only to get rid of him and therefore he was resigning from the said job. He of course mentioned his desire to resign by using the following words in the said letter. “Since you have taken me off from the spare parts department after completion of not less than eight years tenure as Junior and Senior Clerk positions, and left me with two options, by you either to work in Tools and Oil Room the other to resign. After going through the above facts, I have no option left but to tender my resignation as deserved and as desired by you.” 4. After receiving the above resignation letter, the employer through its Branch Manager addressed a letter dated 10-6-1996, accepting the resignation of the workman and instructed him to receive his amounts from the accounts department and settle his accounts. It is also seen that subsequently the employer also sent a communication to the workman indicating that all the amounts due to him are being sent and he accordingly received the said amount such as his salary due, P.P.F. and gratuity amounts on 8-10-1996. This is not in dispute. 5. After receiving all the amounts due to him from the employer, the workman raised an industrial dispute i.e. the present I.D.No.331 of 1997 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, (labour Court) claiming that he did not resign voluntarily, but the employer forced him to resign and therefore requested the labour Court to order his reinstatement into service. The employer contested the said claim. The labour Court by its award dated 2-8-2001 upheld the claim of the workman and found that his resignation was not voluntary, but he acted in haste and the employer also acted in haste in accepting his resignation. In that view of the matter the labour Court by its above award held that the workman can be given the job of Clerk by directing the employer to give the same by ordering a fresh appointment without any past benefits and granted that relief. 6. So far as the relief pertaining to fresh appointment is concerned which went against the employer, it filed writ petition No.21665 of 2001, questioning the same. The workman filed writ petition No.1630 of 2002 aggrieved by the refusal of back wages and also ordering of fresh appointment and sought for the benefits of past service. 7. Sri K.Murali Krishna, Advocate, representing Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the workman argued at length to show that the findings of the labour Court are based on evidence and cannot be disturbed. He also argued that having found that the resignation was not voluntary, the labour Court ought to have granted reinstatement with benefit of past service and all back wages. 8. On the other hand, Sri A.K.Jaya Prakash Rao, learned counsel for the employer pointed out that the letter dated 8-6-1996 shows that the workman has voluntarily tendered his resignation for whatever reasons that are given by him and that was accepted by the employer by its letter dated 10-6-1996 and that the petitioner also received all his service benefits payable on resignation by 8-10-1996 and he waited for one year two months and later on moved the claim before the labour Court and this conduct of the petitioner shows that his resignation is voluntary and therefore the labour Court went wrong even in directing the fresh appointment for him. 9. Thus the main point that arises for determination in these two writ petitions is that whether the petitioner’s act of leaving service by way of resignation is voluntary or not? The other points relating to reinstatement into service and past benefits depend upon this point. 10. It may be noted that when the workman was transferred from the spare parts department to oil and tools department, he addressed a protest letter dated 6-6-1996 to the employer. In this letter, the workman expressed his surprise regarding his transfer and pointed out that the duties in oil and tools department are laborious and an ordinary helper can handle them and questioned the employer’s action in posting him there. He then stated in the said letter that his health was also not suitable for working in the said wing. It should be noted here that the petitioner did not specifically come up with any plea of ill-health to work in the oil and tools department in his first letter. However in his subsequent letter dated 8-6-1996 which runs into about six paragraphs, he again addressed the employer regarding his difficulties in working in the oil and tools department and further added that his health was also not suitable for working there. In the last two paragraphs of the said letter, he made observations that he was shifted from the spare parts department to oil and tools department without completion of his tenure of eight years as Junior and Senior Clerk positions and he also indicated that having worked as a Clerk, he was not prepared to work in the oil and tools department. Making that observation, he further stated that he had only two options i.e. one to work in the oil and tools department and the other to resign from the job and in the last paragraphs he stated that he has chosen the option of resigning from the job. After receiving this letter, the employer addressed the letter dated 10-6-1996 to the workman informing that his resignation has been accepted and further informed him to collect his arrears and other amounts to which he is eligible. 11. After receiving the above letter dated 10-6-1996 from the employer, the workman has received all his dues by 8-10-1996. He then kept quiet for one year two months and later on moved the labour Court. It is true that the wordings in the last two paragraphs of the letter dated 8-10-1996 of the workman which have been already extracted in para-3 of this order would show that he did not address that letter simply as a resignation letter, but he stated that he was not satisfied with his transfer and he was not prepared to work in the oil and tools department and therefore he has to tender his resignation. 12. It should be noted here that being an employee, a workman cannot demand the employer to post him at a particular place or in a particular department and he has to work anywhere as posted by the employer provided his wages or emoluments are not affected to his disadvantage. The workman in the present case could not show any circumstance or legal position to deviate from the above rule. It should also be noted that a workman may resign voluntarily saying that he is not interested in the job or he may tender his resignation saying that he is not interested to work in the job which he was given and therefore he has no option but to resign and in either case the resignation can be treated as voluntary and the employer cannot be blamed for accepting that. 13. The workman after tendering his resignation which was accepted by the employer received the amounts due to him by 8-10-1996 and he did not raise any dispute with the employer for about one year two months regarding his resignation except giving a notice before moving the labour Court. He ultimately filed the claim before the labour Court on 12-10-1997 i.e. after keeping quiet for one year two months. This conduct of the workman in keeping silent for the above period indicates or shows that he acted voluntarily in tendering his resignation or voluntarily resigned and there was no haste on his part or on the part of the employer. It is true that from the wordings in the letter dated 8-10-1996 of the workman he indicated his options either to work in the oil and tools department or to resign from his job and it was in that manner he showed his desire to resign if his transfer to oil and tools department was not cancelled. The wordings in the said letter would thus show that the workman chose to resign and in substance requested the employer to accept his resignation in case his transfer to oil and tools department was not cancelled and as that condition was not tenable the employer accepted the resignation. It is not necessary that in each and every case a letter of resignation should positively show an intention to quit the job. It would be sufficient if the workman indicates his intention to quit the job in case the condition imposed by him which is untenable is not accepted. That is what has happened here. The workman also, to repeat, by his subsequent conduct in keeping silent for one year two months must be held to have confirmed that he wanted to quit the job and therefore his quitting the job or resigning was voluntary. 14. Thus the finding of the labour Court that workman’s resignation was not voluntary and both the workman and employer acted in haste cannot be sustained as it is not based on any evidence at all. It is now settled that this Court under Article 226 can interfere even with a finding of fact recorded by a labour Court if it is found that it is not supported by any evidence. Accordingly the said finding of the labour Court is set aside. If that is to be set aside, it follows that the direction of the labour Court ordering fresh appointment is also to be set aside and therefore the question of granting any back wages does not arise. 15. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition No.21665 of 2001 filed by the employer is allowed by setting aside the award of the labour Court and the writ petition No.1630 of 2002 filed by the workman is dismissed. In both the cases, there shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR 9th August, 2011 Tjmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION Nos.21665 OF 2001 AND 1630 OF 2002 DATE: 09.08.2011