IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.496 of 2001 Date of decision:25.08.2009 The Panipat Co-operative Sugar Mills, Distillery Unit, Panipat through its Managing Director ...Petitioner versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat and another. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Abha Rathore, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ---- 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, Panipat, directing reinstatement, continuity and back wages. The contention of the workman before the Labour Court was that he had been forced into executing a letter of resignation and he had withdrawn the resignation even the following day on 18.01.1997 by sending notices to the management. The workman had examined two witnesses to give evidence to the effect that he was threatened for not passing some materials/containers which were allegedly smaller in size than the normal ones and the District Manager directed him to pass those containers and Civil Writ Petition No.496 of 2001 - 2 - also forced him to give a letter of resignation. The management refuted the contentions of the workman and said that the workman had voluntarily submitted the resignation on 17.01.1997 to the Distillery Manager and it was forwarded with the recommendation to the Managing Director that it shall be accepted with immediate effect and the Managing Director also passed an order on the same day accepting the resignation. The Labour Court, however, while appreciating the evidence of the witnesses produced on behalf of the workman, held the evidence of WW-1 and WW-2, was not sufficient, but however, from the statement of WW-3 as well as other documentary evidence, it was clear that the workman had moved an application for withdrawal of his resignation on the next day and he had also moved the application before other authorities for withdrawal of resignation. 2. The Labour Court found the resignation could not take effect and it had also observed that the termination of services without any enquiry was bad. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the management contended that if the actual execution of the resignation letter itself was not shown to be vitiated, the resignation which was accepted immediately put in end to the relationship of master and servant and the subsequent letters of withdrawal the following day or on 31.01.1997 as contended by the management, did not make a difference. On a factual consideration of how the letter of resignation was taken or whether it was under the vitiating circumstances, I do not mean to reappreciate the evidence, but my attention was brought only to the certified Standing Civil Writ Petition No.496 of 2001 - 3 - Orders Panipat Cooperative Sugar Mills that provided for mode of termination of employment in para L(2) which stipulated that “a seasonal or permanent workman desirous of leaving the factory's service shall give 7 days and 15 days notice respectively in writing to the Manager. The wages due to such workman shall be paid on the day the notice expires and in any case within two days of the expiry of the notice....”. The contention on behalf of the workman was, therefore, that he being a permanent workman, 15 days notice in writing was necessary before leaving the factory's service and within 15 days, the letter of withdrawal had been made. According to the learned counsel, therefore, the immediate acceptance of the resignation cannot be done and it cannot take effect. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the management refers me to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nand Keshwar Prasad Versus Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Limited and others-1998(5) SCC 461, which laid down the date of resignation/ voluntary retirement could be advanced by the employer by accepting resignation/voluntary retirement from a date earlier than the date indicated by employee. While stating that such withdrawal would be permissible, the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined it in the context of whether it was pleaded by the employee that he withdrew the resignation before the intended date. He had not pleaded for withdrawal of resignation before the intended date, but on the other hand, he had only pleaded the case of resignation as being not voluntary. The attempt of the learned counsel was to show that in this case since the finding was Civil Writ Petition No.496 of 2001 - 4 - that there was no force or vitiating circumstance that annulled the validity of the resignation, the acceptance of the resignation immediately was justified. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court actually dealt with the case of the possibility of the management to accept a resignation even earlier to the date mentioned in the resignation letter only when the workman did not withdraw the resignation by that day. In this case that was precisely the situation that had happened of the workman withdrawing the resignation within a period of 15 days. The exception which even the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court points out is squarely applicable and more than supporting the contention of the management, the said decision will answer the particular circumstance that this case grapples with. The learned counsel's contention was that the workman was bound to give two weeks' notice and that notice was not given. It was incumbent on the workman to give two weeks' notice and he had chosen not to give the same and in such a situation, an immediate acceptance of the resignation would possible. On the contrary, it is this particular requirement of 15 days notice, which as stipulated in the Standing order that sets a breather for the workman to consider whether he could withdraw in that period or not. If he had not given a notice of 15 days, a withdrawal done before that period will be effective and an immediate acceptance of resignation before 15 days can not operate to annul the withdrawal. 5. The learned counsel also referred me to another decision of this Court in Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar Versus North Zone Cultural Centre and another-1991(3) RSJ 328, where it was held that a Civil Writ Petition No.496 of 2001 - 5 - resignation would be effective when it is accepted and the Government could relieve the workman of his duties. The case was not with reference to any particular Standing Order or Rule that provided for a mode of termination of service. While there cannot be any doubt about the proposition that a resignation would be effective only when it is accepted, it does not answer to the situation to the effect of withdrawal of such resignation before the date when it shall become operative. In this case, the resignation has been withdrawn and therefore, the so-called immediate acceptance has no value. 6. The reasoning of the Court below that there was no enquiry constituted to find the termination bad, is clearly wrong but it shall have no bearing since the ultimate award of the Labour Court is upheld on other grounds which are legally sustainable. 7. The learned counsel also further submits that the workman ought not to have been granted back wages for the period when he was not working. There has been specific evidence before the Labour Court that he remained unemployed and that he was not otherwise gainfully employed. The Labour Court had, under the circumstances, chosen to exercise his discretion to award back wages and I do not find any irregularity to intervene in the writ petition. 8. The award of the Labour Court is confirmed in all respects as regards reinstatement, continuity of service and back wages and the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 25.08.2009 sanjeev