C.W.P No.6495 of 1987 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No.6495 of 1987 Date of Decision: 02.07.2009 Hindu Kanya Mahavidalaya, Dhariwal (Gurdaspur) .......Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur and another ....Respondents Present: Mr. O.P. Hoshiarpuri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.K. Longia, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?Yes -.- K. KANNAN J. 1. By the award of the Labour Court, Gurdaspur dated 05.05.1987, the workman Sh. Hori Lal was directed to be reinstated with back wages from 21.08.1981 till the date of reinstatement. The order came to be passed under the following circumstances. 2. The workman was admittedly working as a gardener (Mali) with the respondent school called Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Dhariwal. The demand that gave rise to dispute was a plea for reinstatement by a letter dated 19.02.1980 (Annexure P-2). This letter was subsequently followed up with a demand issued through notice on 24.08.1981 (annexure P-3). In that, for the first time, the workman had alleged that he had been illegally, wrongfully and with mala fide intention of the management terminated in January, 1980 without any C.W.P No.6495 of 1987 -2- notice/charge-sheet/enquiry. This demand was resisted by the school stating that he had voluntarily resigned from service and that cessation from employment was the result of resignation, which was not covered under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. 3. The Labour Court that examined the evidence of both sides had come to the conclusion that the termination of service to be bad and passed the order which is impugned in the writ petition. While examining the case of the workman (WW-3), the Labour Court adverted to his evidence that he was an illiterate and did not know to read Hindi. His contention was that his signature was taken on some papers which had been utilized by the school for incorporating letters of resignation. While adverting to this statement, the Labour Court observed that even in the preliminary objections raised by the school, date of the alleged resignation was not mentioned and that it was left blank. It accepted the contention which was undisputed that the workman was illiterate. It found the evidence of the workman stated on the oath to be trustworthy and inferred that there was no need for the workman to be stating brazen falsehood. Under such circumstances, the Labour Court found that the truth of alleged letter of resignation was not established by the school and if the initial engagement was an admitted fact, the Labour Court reasoned that the occasion of non-employment subsequently amounted to termination and directed reinstatement. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urged in the writ petition that the demand notice nowhere contained reference to the fact that the resignation letter was fabricated by the school or that C.W.P No.6495 of 1987 -3- his signatures had been taken on blank papers and utilized to make them appear as though that the workman had voluntarily resigned from the job. This argument, in my view, is fallacious for it was all along the contention of the workman that he was not lawfully terminated and it was only the management of the school that pleaded the case of voluntarily resignation. In the face of express denial of such letter, save for the signature contained in the document of a person who was an illiterate, the burden was always only on the management-school to establish the genuineness of the letter. The Labour Court had cogent reasons for disbelieving the letter on account of the illiteracy of the petitioner, the fact that the management did not give even the alleged date of resignation and the trustworthiness of the workman who has stated that his signature alone had been taken on papers but there were no recitals of which he knew of, regarding the voluntary resignation. It is indeed artificial that a person would seek for resignation on the ground of family difficulties. If at all, there were family difficulties and financial need, the workman would ask only for employment and not even resign the job that he had. If the letters were voluntary, normally one would have expected the letter seeking for re-employment to make a reference about it. On the other hand, the request for employment came about within even a few days on 19.02.1980 stating that he was a person without job and that his children were starving. He had also given evidence that he belonged to an oppressed community and he had a hard living as a beggar. To such a person to attribute niceties in law or to know that he was voluntarily resigning from the job will be really cruel. Illiteracy is a C.W.P No.6495 of 1987 -4- bane and poverty that arises from non-employment is not merely a personal tragedy but a national shame. A finding that the Labour Court had given regarding the letter of resignation to be not true had been made on appreciation of evidence, on facts and after having the benefit of examining the party in person. There is no reason to interfere with such a finding of fact by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had an objection to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain the petition by pointing out that the appropriate remedy would be only under Punjab Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Amendment Act, 1983. According to him, the workman could have had a relief only by seeking an adjudication before the Director of Education. I have not been shown any provision of law that ousted the jurisdiction of Labour Court. The Labour Court itself had considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board etc. Vs. Rajappa and others 1978 (1) LLJ 349 to find that educational institution is an "industry" within the definition of the Industrial Disputes Act and remedy before the Labour Court was very much available. Even a remedy that an employee in educational institution could have under any such legislation cannot take away the statutory right given to a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act. The decision regarding the maintainability of the petition by the Labour Court is, therefore, affirmed and the contention of the petition in that regard is rejected. 6. Under the circumstances, there is no merit in the writ C.W.P No.6495 of 1987 -5- petition and it is accordingly dismissed, affirming the decision of the Labour Court, with costs assessed at Rs.5,000/-. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 02, 2009 Pankaj*