THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.21409 of 2001 Date: 06.12.2010 Between: Biyyala Saimallu … Petitioner And Colliery Manager, K.K.S. Incline, Post: Kalyankani, Mandal: Mandamarri and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.21409 of 2001 ORDER : The petitioner seeks Writ of Certiorari in respect of Award, dated 2.8.2000, passed by the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Godavarikhani, in Industrial Dispute No.48 of 1997, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short “the Act”). 2. There is no dispute about the petitioner working as General Mazdoor in Singareni Collieries Company Limited. It is alleged that the petitioner’s services as General Mazdoor were terminated in the year 1984 on the ground that he was medically unfit to perform his duties. When the petitioner approached the Labour Court/1st respondent for reinstatement questioning the retrenchment as illegal, the management of the company came forward with the plea that the petitioner voluntarily submitted his resignation, dated 9.8.1984, and that his resignation was accepted and proceedings were accordingly passed by the management. The petitioner approached the 1st respondent after a period of 13 years of his alleged retrenchment or disengagement or termination of his services under the management. The 1st respondent accepted the management’s plea and dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. 3. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that though the alleged resignation letter is dated 9.8.1984, the 1st witness, namely D.Rajamallu, signed thereon on 14.9.1984 and that, therefore, the resignation letter could not have been accepted on 9.8.1984. 4. According to the management, resignation letter, dated 9.8.1984, of the petitioner was accepted by the management as per Ex.M-3 letter dated 14.10.1984. Thus, the resignation letter was not accepted on 9.8.1984, the date bearing on that letter. 5. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner is disputing truth of the said resignation letter and that the Labour Court/1st respondent did not give any opportunity to the petitioner to put-forth his evidence on the aspect of truth of the resignation letter. The resignation letter, dated 9.8.1984, contains one thumb impression, which is stated to be that of the petitioner, and it was attested by two witnesses, who are co-workers of the petitioner. When the petitioner contended that the resignation letter was not given by him, the said disputed question becomes one of fact and the Labour Court, being final authority of fact finding, should have given complete opportunity to the petitioner to lead his evidence on that aspect. 6. No doubt, there is long delay of 13 years after acceptance of the petitioner’s resignation, when he approached the Labour Court. Therefore, the Labour Court should have considered whether there are any latches or abandonment of claim by the petitioner during the said period of 13 years. Without considering all these aspects, the 1st respondent disposed of the dispute in an unhappy and slip-shod manner. Therefore, I propose to give an opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence before the Labour Court by remitting the matter to the 1st respondent. 7. In the result, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order of the 1st respondent and remitting the matter to the 1st respondent for fresh disposal according to law in the light of observations made in this order and after giving opportunity to both the parties to lead further oral and documentary evidence. No costs. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 06.12.2010. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.21409 of 2001 06.12.2010 (Msr)