-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9358 OF 2007 Vishwakarma Institute of Technology ) 666, Upper Indiranagar, Bibwewadi, ) Pune-411 037 through its Principal )..Petitioner versus Sandeep Krishna Bhagwat ) age about 32, Occupation nil, residing at S.No.44, ) Kelewadi, Kothrud, Pune-411 038 )..Respondent Mr. M.S. Karnik for the petitioner. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR, J. DATE: AUGUST 06, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT By filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Presiding Officer of the Pune/Shivaji University and College Tribunal, Pune, in Appeal No. 26 of 2006 by which the Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the present respondent. 2. The respondent herein filed an appeal against the present petitioner challenging his termination order. The case of the respondent before the Tribunal was that he was appointed as a Driver by the petitioner institution with effect from 1st May, 1995. According to him, his appointment was on a clear and permanent post and he became permanent on 1st May, -2- 1997. According to the respondent, the Principal of the Institute started harassing him and was asking him to do other work than that of a Driver. He worked in the institution till 31st March, 2006. However, he was not allowed to resume his duty from 1st April, 2006 when he went for reporting his duties. He was also not allowed to sign the muster roll and on enquiry he came to know that his services have been terminated by the management. It is also the case of the respondent that in the meanwhile he received a notice of caveat from the institution wherein it was stated that he has resigned from the job by letter dated 4th January, 2006 and that he has been relieved from service. The case of the respondent was that he had never resigned and that some papers have been prepared by the Principal showing that he has resigned from the services. 3. The appeal of the respondent was resisted by the management by filing its reply at Exhibit-6. The case of the management before the Tribunal was that the respondent also moved the authority under the Industrial Disputes Act and the Conciliation Officer recorded his failure report and that the dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The appeal was, therefore, barred by res judicata. It is the case of the management that the concerned employee has tendered his resignation on 4th January, 2006 and the same was accepted on 31st March, 2006 and, therefore, there is no substance in the appeal. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the -3- respondent had never resigned on his own volition and that his signature has been misused. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the termination of the services of the respondent on the basis of alleged letter of resignation dated 4th January, 2006, was quashed and set aside by the Tribunal. Consequently, order of back wages was also passed. It is the aforesaid order of the Tribunal dated 11th October, 2007 which is impugned in the present writ petition at the instance of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the respondent had never resigned voluntarily. In order to substantiate his say, he has relied upon the so-called letter of resignation which is annexed with the petition at Exhibit-H at page 41. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the respondent has resigned from service, there was no question of reinstating him in service and that since respondent has resigned it cannot be said that his services were terminated by the petitioner management. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also gone through the order and documents annexed to the petition. It is required to be noted that the Tribunal has considered the question of so-called resignation. The Tribunal also gone through the letter of resignation and in my view, the Tribunal has rightly found that it can never be said to be a -4- genuine letter of resignation. The Tribunal has considered this aspect that so-called letter of resignation is dated 4th January, 2006 and an endorsement was made on that letter on 31st March, 2006 stating “approved”. The Tribunal has found that the signature thereon has been arranged in the past and there is ample blank space above the signature. The Tribunal has accepted the say of the respondent that even though the signature is of him but the writing is not in his handwriting. In paragraph 7 of the order, the Tribunal has considered this aspect in great detail. The Tribunal has also considered a xerox copy of the application at Exh. 9/2 by which the respondent has applied for loan from Janaseva Sahakari Bank Limited. Below that application, there is a certificate which is filled in by the employer and admittedly the Principal of the institution has prepared the said certificate and signed below it with the stamp of the institution. In that certificate it is clearly stated that the respondent is working with the petitioner and the petitioner agrees to recover and remit the necessary amount of his monthly instalment from his salary towards repayment of the loan until the loan account is closed. In my view, the Tribunal has rightly considered that if the respondent had tendered resignation on 4th January, 2006, petitioner would not have issued such a certificate on 30th January, 2006. The Tribunal has also considered that aspect in the said paragraph for coming to the conclusion that there is no genuine resignation on the part of the respondent. It is also required to be noted and as rightly observed by the Tribunal in paragraph 8 that no resolution of management accepting the resignation -5- of the respondent is produced on record. It is also interesting to note that the management had even filed a caveat as the management was apprehensive that the respondent may challenge the so-called resignation. If, according to the management it was a genuine resignation, there was no reason for the management to become apprehensive by filing caveat mentioning therein the aspect of the resignation. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances, in my view, the Tribunal was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the respondent had never tendered his resignation and the one which is produced on record is a manipulated document. Considering the above, in my view, this is not a case in which this Court would like to interfere with the said finding in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. I, therefore, do not find any substance in the petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed summarily. P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.