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 CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION PETITION PETITION NO.5899 OF 2007 NO.5899 OF 2007 NO.5899 OF 2007 M/s M/s M/s Innovassynth Innovassynth Innovassynth Technologies (India) Technologies (India) Technologies (India) Ltd Ltd Ltd ...... Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner vs vs vs Mr.Praful Mr.Praful Mr.Praful Anant Gaikwad & ors.. Anant Gaikwad & ors.. Anant Gaikwad & ors.. Respondents Respondents Respondents Mr.P.C.Pavaskar Mr.P.C.Pavaskar Mr.P.C.Pavaskar for Petitioner for Petitioner for Petitioner Mr.V.M.Parkar Mr.V.M.Parkar Mr.V.M.Parkar for for for Respondent no.1. Respondent no.1. Respondent no.1. CORAM CORAM CORAM : : : Smt.Nishita Mhatre, J Smt.Nishita Mhatre, J Smt.Nishita Mhatre, J DATED DATED DATED : : : 9th October, 2007 9th October, 2007 9th October, 2007 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1.1.1. The respondent-workman had filed a complaint The respondent-workman had filed a complaint The respondent-workman had filed a complaint before before before the Labour Court contending that his services the Labour Court contending that his services the Labour Court contending that his services had had had been wrongfully terminated on 17th April, 1996. been wrongfully terminated on 17th April, 1996. been wrongfully terminated on 17th April, 1996. A complaint was filed under Item 1 (b) (e) (f) and complaint was filed under Item 1 (b) (e) (f) and complaint was filed under Item 1 (b) (e) (f) and (g) (g) (g) of the Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. of the Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. of the Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act. Act. Act. The petitioner contended in its written The petitioner contended in its written The petitioner contended in its written statement statement statement that it had not terminated the services of that it had not terminated the services of that it had not terminated the services of the the the respondent-workman but, in fact he had tendered respondent-workman but, in fact he had tendered respondent-workman but, in fact he had tendered his resignation on 15th April, 1996. According to resignation on 15th April, 1996. According to resignation on 15th April, 1996. According to the the the petitioner, this resignation letter was witnessed petitioner, this resignation letter was witnessed petitioner, this resignation letter was witnessed by by by the the the office bearers of the trade union of which the office bearers of the trade union of which the office bearers of the trade union of which the 1st 1st 1st respondent was a member. The petitioner respondent was a member. The petitioner respondent was a member. The petitioner contended contended contended that in view of the letter of resignation that in view of the letter of resignation that in view of the letter of resignation dated dated dated 15th April, 1996 there was no question of the 15th April, 1996 there was no question of the 15th April, 1996 there was no question of the petitioner petitioner petitioner having terminated his services. Both the having terminated his services. Both the having terminated his services. Both the Labour Labour Labour Court and the Industrial Court in revision Court and the Industrial Court in revision Court and the Industrial Court in revision have have have held that the letter of resignation cannot be held that the letter of resignation cannot be held that the letter of resignation cannot be believed. believed. believed. The Labour Court has found that the The Labour Court has found that the The Labour Court has found that the deposition deposition deposition of the hand writing expert also did not of the hand writing expert also did not of the hand writing expert also did not throw throw throw any light on the letter of resignation. Both any light on the letter of resignation. Both any light on the letter of resignation. Both 2 the the the Courts below have found that services of the Courts below have found that services of the Courts below have found that services of the respondent-workman respondent-workman respondent-workman were terminated on 17th April, were terminated on 17th April, were terminated on 17th April, 1996 1996 1996 illegally and therefore the petitioner had illegally and therefore the petitioner had illegally and therefore the petitioner had committed committed committed unfair labour practice. Both the Labour unfair labour practice. Both the Labour unfair labour practice. Both the Labour Court Court Court and Industrial Court have held that the and Industrial Court have held that the and Industrial Court have held that the petitioner petitioner petitioner was unable to prove that the was unable to prove that the was unable to prove that the respondent-workman respondent-workman respondent-workman had had had resigned from services on 15th resigned from services on 15th resigned from services on 15th April, April, April, 1996. Significantly, the petitioner did not 1996. Significantly, the petitioner did not 1996. Significantly, the petitioner did not examine examine examine any of the office bearers who had witnessed any of the office bearers who had witnessed any of the office bearers who had witnessed the the the so called letter of resignation. These are so called letter of resignation. These are so called letter of resignation. These are findings findings findings of of of fact which need not be interfered with by fact which need not be interfered with by fact which need not be interfered with by this this this Court. There is no perversity in the findings Court. There is no perversity in the findings Court. There is no perversity in the findings recorded recorded recorded by the Courts below. Apart from this, the by the Courts below. Apart from this, the by the Courts below. Apart from this, the alleged alleged alleged letter of resignation which is Exhibit A to letter of resignation which is Exhibit A to letter of resignation which is Exhibit A to the the the petition does not disclose any date on which the petition does not disclose any date on which the petition does not disclose any date on which the letter letter letter was was was written. All these factors in my opinion, written. All these factors in my opinion, written. All these factors in my opinion, indicate indicate indicate that the petitioner has not been able to that the petitioner has not been able to that the petitioner has not been able to prove prove prove its case. its case. its case. Petition Petition Petition rejected. rejected. rejected. (Smt (Smt (Smt Nishita Mhatre, J) Nishita Mhatre, J) Nishita Mhatre, J) 3