THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO.18213 OF 2002 Date: 03.08.2011 Between: K.Murali …..Petitioner And The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, M.J.Road, Hyderabad and others …..Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO.18213 OF 2002 ORDER: The petitioner is a former workman of the 2nd respondent company. He raised an industrial dispute i.e. I.D.No.70 of 1999 before the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad complaining that the 2nd respondent orally terminated him from service on 30-3-1999 and sought for various reliefs. 2. The 2nd respondent’s stand before the Labour Court is that the petitioner himself submitted a resignation letter dated 29-3-1999 stating that he intending to resign due to his personal problems and that resignation was accepted and consequently the petitioner left the service of the 2nd respondent. The plea of the 2nd respondent is that the petitioner was never terminated orally from service and that he himself left the service. 3. Both sides have let in their evidence before the Labour Court. The Labour Court after considering the evidence, by its award dated 25-6- 2002 upheld the case of the 2nd respondent and dismissed the claim of the petitioner. Questioning that award, the present writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Certiorari. 4. Sri G.Allah Bakash, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that earlier the 2nd respondent’s management took resignation letter dated 19-4-1995 in order to prevent the petitioner and also some others from forming unions and that letter has been pressed into service. A perusal of the record obtained from the Labour Court would show that the said letter dated 19-4-1995 has been produced by the 2nd respondent before it and it has also been marked as Ex.W-1. This apart, the record of the Labour Court would also show that the 2nd respondent produced the present letter of resignation of the petitioner which was received by its Managing Director on 29-3-1999. What should be noted is that the petitioner has not mentioned in his petition before the Labour Court about the earlier letter of resignation and he also did not say that the present letter of resignation was taken on 19-4-1995 itself or in connection with some other purpose and the said letter was pressed into service. 5. On the other hand, the petitioner in his evidence before the Labour Court admitted the present resignation letter submitted on 29-3-1999 by him. The 2nd respondent has clearly produced the letter of resignation dated 19-4-1995 in which it did not act upon. The Labour Court discussed all these aspects and came to the conclusion that the petitioner himself voluntarily left the service of the 2nd respondent by resigning from his job and that was accepted by the management and therefore, the petitioner cannot have any cause of action against the 2nd respondent. 6. The learned counsel for petitioner pointed out that the petitioner got issued a notice dated 7-4-1999 to the 2nd respondent calling upon it to cancel the oral termination order dated 30-3-1999 and take him back into service. A copy of this letter is also available in the record sent by the Labour Court. A perusal of that letter would show that it is totally silent about the resignation letters dated 19-4-1995 and 29-3-1999 submitted by the petitioner. On the other hand in his evidence, to repeat, the petitioner admitted both the letters. It should also be noted that the 2nd respondent did not rely upon the resignation letter dated 19-4-1995, but it has relied upon the resignation letter submitted by the petitioner on 29-3- 1999. The petitioner’s attitude would show that he was aware of both the letter of resignation, but he did not make any mention about them even in his notice dated 7-4-1999. This only goes to show that the petitioner has given the resignation voluntarily on 29-3-1999 to the concerned and later on, as an afterthought to get back his job, he raised the industrial dispute. The Labour Court has considered this aspect and rejected the petitioner’s case. The plea of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent did not give any reply to his notice, therefore, in the above circumstances cannot assume any significance. Looked at any point of view, the award passed by the Labour Court does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR 3rd August, 2011 Tjmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO.18213 OF 2002 DATE: 03.08.2011