1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 151 OF 2003 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4784 OF 2002 Madhukar Ramkrishna Deshmukh. .... Appellant. vs. The Oriental Containers Ltd., & Anr. ..... Respondents. None for the appellant. Mr. V.P. Vaidya for the respondents. CORAM : J.N. PATEL, ACTING, C.J. & S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 9TH JUNE, 2010. P.C. Since the appeal is pending in this Court for long time, we have proceeded to peruse the papers and pass an order. 2. None present on behalf of the appellant. Heard Mr. Vaidya on behalf of the respondent. 3. The only ground on which this appeal is pressed is that the 2 learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the resignation tendered by the appellant-petitioner was obtained forcibly. The finding is that the appellant is not guilty of theft and in such circumstances the Labour Court has not committed any error in allowing the complaint of unfair labour practice. This is a case of clear victimisation and, therefore, item 1, clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) & (f) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 is attracted. 4. We have gone through the the Appeal Memo and all annexures thereto including the orders passed by the Industrial Court and the learned Single Judge. The Courts below have concurrently held that in order to avoid criminal proceedings, the appellant-petitioner voluntarily resigned from service. There is no case of unfair labour practice much less in terms of the aforementioned items made out. The Industrial Court while allowing the revision has observed that there was no occassion for holding any enquiry as the appellant-petitioner (original complainant) had confessed to his crime. Once he confessed that theft was committed, there was no need of any enquiry, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. Further, in paragraph 22 of the order of the Industrial Court it has been observed that the resignation letter was submitted on 7.7.1998 whereas the letter of withdrawal was addressed in September, 1998 i.e. on 5.9.1998. Thus, after two months of tendering of the resignation that the Appellant complained that it was obtained under pressure or by force. In the peculiar facts, it was expected that the appellant would have been diligent in refuting the said resignation and within a reasonable time. The Revisional Court so also the 3 learned Single Judge found that the very fact that the resignation was tendered and thereafter sought to be withdrawn is something which would go against the case set out in the complaint. The Labour Court has not considered all these aspects and ignored the material and evidence on record. In such circumstances, the error committed was rightly corrected by the Industrial Court and the concurrent findings of the revisional court so also of the learned Single Judge require no interference. Hence, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. No costs. (J.N. PATEL, ACTING, C.J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)