IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.9565 of 2008 Date of Decision:- 02.03.2009 K.K.Nair ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Gurinder Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.D.S.Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr.Hitesh Pandit, Advocate for respondent No.3. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) In the present writ petition, challenge is to the order dated 15.3.2008 (Annexure P-3) vide which the respondent-State has declined to refer the industrial dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication on the ground that the workman had submitted his resignation and thereafter withdrew the same, which would not amount to industrial dispute. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the resignation which was submitted by the workman was not accepted by the respondent- Management; rather in response thereto, as per the reply filed by the respondents and the documents Annexure R3/2 attached thereto, which is a communication dated 9.12.2006, received from the respondent- Management, it is apparent that his resignation was not accepted and it was subject to his working for a period of one month as per his appointment letter dated 1.1.1997 and to hand over the charge to the new person who was to be appointed in his place. He further contends that since the duties of the workman were not settled, he again approached the respondent- Management to allow him to join duties but they refused to take him back in C.W.P.No.9565 of 2008 -2- service and that he was not allowed to join duty and, thereafter, his services stood terminated without acceptance of his resignation, leading to an industrial dispute which needed to be referred to and adjudicated upon by the Labour Court on the pleadings of the parties and the documents attached thereto. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-Management has submitted that as per the resignation, if the employee has not complied with the conditions as per his appointment letter, he would not be entitled to one month's salary in lieu of his period of resignation which he was required to give or he was required to work and, therefore, that amount will have to be adjusted. He contends that as the workman has not complied with the communication dated 9.12.2006 (Annexure R3/2), his resignation stood automatically accepted and, therefore, there was no question of withdrawal of the resignation by the workman. Counsel for the respondent relies upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Secretary Indian Tea Association vs. Ajit Kumar Barat and others, JT 2000 (2) SC 70 to contend that the Appropriate Government has exercised its powers under Section 10 of the Act and after enquiring into the matter has formed a subjective opinion that there does not exist an industrial dispute between the parties and, therefore, the order impugned is fully justified and does not call for interference by this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The arguments, as have been referred to above, itself indicate that an industrial dispute indeed exists between the parties. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been asserted that he did submit C.W.P.No.9565 of 2008 -3- his resignation which was not accepted and thereafter before the acceptance of the resignation, he had withdrawn his resignation and on his approaching the Management, he was not allowed to join duties whereas on behalf of the Management, it is the submission that the workman had been directed to join them for a period of one month and work with them as per his terms of appointment dated 1.1.1997 and to hand over the charge to the new person. Since he has not complied with that, his resignation would automatically be deemed to have been accepted on completion of one month thereafter. These questions can only be decided after evidence has been led by the respective parties and, therefore, the matter needs adjudication, there being an industrial dispute which calls for a decision by the Labour Court. The impugned order dated 15.3.2008, (Annexure P-3), therefore, cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to reconsider the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the provisions of Section 10 of the Act within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The writ petition stands allowed in the above terms. March 02, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE