C.W.P. No.18245 of 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.18245 of 2003 Date of Decision: 26.11.2009 Zile Singh s/o Jain Narain .....Petitioner Versus Government of India/Bharat Sarkar, Ministry of Labour/Shram Mantralaya through the under Secretary and others ....Respondents Present: Ms. Abha Rathore, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The rejection of reference by the Government on the ground that the workman was reported to have left the job on his own, having accepted clearance of his dues, is challenged before this Court by the workman on a plea that what was essential in an industrial adjudication ought not have been undertaken by the Government. The Governor's power to make a reference is administrative and what is necessary is that there is a basis for its decision. The Government had acted on the respective contentions of the parties in the conciliation where on behalf of the management the contention was that the workman had addressed a letter of resignation to the Manager and he had left C.W.P. No.18245 of 2003 -2- the services after receiving his salary. The reply to this was that he gave that letter when the Manager insisted on him to give such a letter and that he was giving that letter only to get the salary for defraying the expenses for his marriage. If there had been any contention made by the workman that there was a coercion practised on him or he was subjected to undue influence, then it should be possible for a person to contend that there was an issue of adjudication before the Labour Court. If the workman's contention was only that the management had secured the letter in order to obtain his salary for his marriage, it was at best an act of persuasion but not an instance which could be said to be either coercion or undue influence. The expressions in the reply given to the management's submission before the Conciliation Officer were not sufficient to annul a situation that terminated the relationship of master and servant. A voluntary resignation given by the workman cannot be said to be vitiated by a persuasive influence even if it was accepted that there was such a persuasion by the management. There was no scope for industrial adjudication and the decision of the Government not to refer the matter for adjudication was, under the circumstances, justified. 2. The writ petition fails and accordingly dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE November 26, 2009 Pankaj*