IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.14452 of 2001 Date of decision:06.07.2009 The Managing Committee, Arya Senior Secondary School, near old Sabzi Mandi,Ludhiana. ...Petitioner versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda ...Respondents and another CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sarwan Sehgal, Advocate, for the respondent. ----- 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 writ petition challenges the award passed by the Labour Court, Ludhiana, directing reinstatement with 25% back wages to the workman, who was admittedly a Chowkidar in the school. 2. The adjudication came through a reference on a dispute of fact that the workman had voluntarily given his resignation on 18.06.1994 and that he had obtained all the terminal benefits that were due to him. The workman's contention was that he was an illiterate person and that he had gone to his village in Nepal due to his illness and when he returned after two months with a fitness certificate from the Civil Writ Petition No.14452 of 2001 - 2 - doctor, he was allowed to work for a month and later signatures were taken from him on a representation that it would be used for payment of salary when he was absent and for regularization. The management had a different story to tell that he had absented himself unauthorisedly and notice had been served on him for rejoining on 07.05.1994. He came back to express that he was not willing to join and gave a letter of voluntary resignation on 18.06.1994. He was paid one month's salary of Rs.1872/- and Rs.2000/- as ex gratia payment, which were delivered to him by cheques. His contribution towards provident funds amounting to Rs.7485/- and GPF to the tune of Rs.12583-82 had been credited to his bank account, which had been withdrawn by the workman. 3. Before the Labour Court, the workman altered his stand and sought to contend that he went to his native village for the illness of his brother and denied the suggestion that he went only for his own. However, he persisted with his version that when he signed some papers they were blank and he had never voluntarily tendered his resignation. The management took up the plea of voluntary resignation and knowing that the burden of establishing such resignation rest on its shoulders in view of the specific denial made by the workman that he had signed a letter of resignation voluntarily, it relied on the evidence of its Manager that through Shri Om Parkash Passi, who admitted in his cross-examination as follows:- “The workman can not sign and to my knowledge he is not otherwise educated. ..........................Bal Bahadur (Workman) had not signed in my presence. The original of Ex.W/1 is in the office of District Education Officer, Civil Writ Petition No.14452 of 2001 - 3 - Ludhiana. The cheque of PF was deposited in the bank account of the workman along with other benefits.....................I do not know who had scribed Ex.M/3 (alleged resignation letter).” The definite suggestion which was made to the said witness was that the workman was illiterate and the resignation letter was forged and the signatures were obtained on the pretext of regularizing or sanctioning his leave. 4 The Labour Court that was examining the evidence of the witnesses also took note of the fact that the deposit through cheques took place on the same day when the alleged resignation letter was taken on 18.06.1994 and it reasoned that a month's salary would not have been paid when a month's notice was expected from either party and if at all, a person must have been allowed to resign even within the notice period, the money must have been paid by the workman and no money would have been paid by the management to such workman. The Labour Court also found that by the only fact that some cheques had been received by him, they would not establish that he was voluntarily tendering his resignation. On a factual consideration upon appreciation of evidence, the Labour Court found the resignation letter to be not proved and directed reinstatement. The reasoning, I find to be perfectly justified. 5. It was suggested on behalf of the management that the workman was gainfully employed in yet another school while the explanation of the workman was that he used to sleep in the premises of another school. The Labour Court found the workman could not have been remaining merely idle and directed only 25% of the wages to be Civil Writ Petition No.14452 of 2001 - 4 - paid. The direction for payment of wages at 25% was again on consideration of relevant facts of the Court's own assessment of how the workman could have engaged himself elsewhere and that he was not entitled to the entire back wages. 6. I do not find any reason to find fault with the reasoning adopted by the Labour Court in its award and the writ petition challenging the award ought to fail. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 06.07.2009 sanjeev