( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3022 OF 1991 The Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Chande Kasare, Taluka Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Sayyad Taju Papabhai, At & Post Chande-Kasare, Tq Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ahmednagar. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. N.D. Sonawane, advocate holding for Mr. P.B. Shirsath, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.V. Natu, advocate for the respondent No.1. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 5th March, 2010] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. By this petition, the petitioner impugns award rendered by learned Presiding Officer of Labour Court, Ahmednagar, in Reference (IDA) No. 77 of 1986. The Reference was allowed by the Labour Court with direction to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service w.e.f. 25th December, 1983 without payment of backwages. ( 2 ) 2. The respondent approached the Deputy Commissioner of Labour with request to make Reference to the Labour Court alleging that he was illegally retrenched by the petitioner since 25th December, 1983. He asserted that he was employed as a Peon with the petitioner on regular basis. He was working as such since much before 1983 and had worked continuously for more than 240 days. He contended that his monthly salary was Rs. 116/-. He was not paid the emoluments/wages. The petitioner allegedly levelled a false charge against him that he had prepared fabricated voucher of Rs. 2400/-. He was relieved from his duty and was not allowed to work any more. Consequently, he urged for the reinstatement alongwith backwages. The petitioner contended that the respondent had voluntarily resigned the post. The petitioner further asserted that in view of section 61 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (for short, “the BVP Act”), alternate remedy by way of appeal to the office of the Block Development Officer was available to the respondent. It was contended that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction ( 3 ) because the dispute does not fall within the ambit of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner asserted that an amount of Rs. 2400/- was paid to the respondent on 23rd December, 1983 towards the arrears of the salary amount for period between September, 1982 to November, 1983, which he accepted without demure. Thus, according to the petitioner, the respondent was not entitled to seek reinstatement on account of his voluntary resignation of the post as well as full and final settlement of the amount of monthly salary which he had accepted. 3. The learned Judge of the Labour Court held that the respondent was illegally terminated by the petitioner which tantamounts to retrenchment under section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court held that the respondent was paid the entire amount of arrears of the salary up-till 23rd December, 1983 and that nothing was due. Consequently, the Reference was partly allowed to the extent of reinstatement and the relief of backwages was denied. ( 4 ) 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Though it is argued that the petitioner cannot be termed as “industry” within the meaning of section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, yet, it is not necessary to deal with such argument. For, the findings of the Labour Court indicate that the respondent No. 1 voluntarily tendered resignation of his post as a Peon. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that resignation was duly accepted in a General Meeting of the petitioner – Village Panchayat. Once it was found that the necessary formalities were complied with, there was no basis to reach conclusion that the respondent was retrenched as contemplated under section 25F. The concept “retrenchment” is altogether different from the concept of “voluntary resignation”. It need not be emphasized that retrenchment is the forced ouster of an employee from the place of employment/working or industrial unit, as the case may be,. Needless to say, in case of retrenchment, there is compulsory denial to the workman to continue the work. In such a case, the workman is ready and willing to work but the employer by ( 5 ) one way or the other denies him the work without giving any retrenchment notice. In the present case, there is specific finding arrived at by the Labour Court that the respondent No. 1 voluntarily resigned the post. The Labour Court accepted version of the Gram Sevak who corroborated the fact that the resignation was tendered by the respondent No. 1 and was approved by the members of the Village Panchayat in a meeting held for such purpose. The contention of the respondent No. 1 was that he had signed a blank paper. The learned Judge of the Labour Court discarded his contention holding that heavy burden was on him to establish the plea of fraud. 6. The matter does not stop here. The Labour Court also noticed that the entire payment of the salary arrears was cleared up-till 23rd December, 1983 and nothing was due to the respondent from the petitioner. Obviously, when he executed the voucher (Exh-C13), he had knowledge that the salary amount was being paid because of his resignation which was effective from next day i.e. 24th December, 1983. The case does not fall within ambit of section 2 (OO) or (bb) of the Industrial ( 6 ) Disputes Act. The relationship between the parties had come to an end due to resignation of the respondent No. 1. The resignation was unconditional. Nothing had remained to be done nor the respondent No. 1 withdrew the resignation any time before it was accepted by the petitioner. Under the circumstances, the Labour Court committed patent error while allowing the Reference application and directing reinstatement of the respondent No.1. The Labour Court travelled beyond the legal parameters of section 10 (1) read with section 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 while allowing the Reference. 7. For the reasons aforestated, it will have to be said that the impugned judgement is patently erroneous and unsustainable. Hence, the petition is allowed. The impugned judgement is set aside. Rule made absolute accordingly. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/wp3022-91 ( 7 )