1 wp-2431-11.sxw mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2431 OF 2011 Shri Mahila Griha Udyog Lijjat Papad & Anr. ..Petitioners Vs. Sunita Prakash Nimhan ..Respondent Ms Meena Doshi for the Petitioners Mr. Nitin Kulkarni for the Respondent CORAM:- R.Y.GANOO, J DATED :- JULY 5, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners. 2 The Petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Presiding Officer, 2nd Labour Court, Pune by which, the Petitioner is directed to reinstate the Respondent in the services of the Petitioners. 3 It is the case of the Respondent that she was working with the Petitioners from 4-12-1976, as a helper and her services came to be terminated by way of an oral order dated 10-10-1992. The Respondent had addressed a letter to the Petitioners in September 1995 asking that she should be taken back in the employment. A copy of that was sent for Information and Mediation to the Conciliation Officer, Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, Pune. On the basis of that a reference was made and the Learned Presiding Officer, 2nd Labour Court, Pune was called upon to decide the question of reinstatement of the Respondent. The evidence was placed before the concerned Labour Court and the Presiding Officer 2 wp-2431-11.sxw after giving opportunity to both the sides passed an Award dated 19-7-2010 thereby directing the Petitioners to reinstate the Respondent. This Award is challenged by way of this Petition. 4 I have extensively heard the Learned Counsel Ms Meena Doshi for the Petitioners as well as the Learned Counsel Mr. Nitin Kulkarni for the Respondent. I have perused the evidence led by the Respondent in support of the case before the Learned Presiding Officer. It has been the case of the Respondent that her service was terminated by way of an oral direction. It is also the case of the Respondent that she was asked to tender signature on a so called resignation by two officers of the Petitioners namely Mr. Kole and Ms Anaskar and even the date was not put in on the said letter. In the cross examination a letter purported to be resignation dated 10-10-1992 was shown to her in the nature of xerox copy. She has admitted her signature on the same. 5 The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submitted that the view taken by the Learned Presiding Officer as regards this document dated 10-10-1992, is wrong. According to her if signature on said document Exhibit O-10 was admitted by Respondent it cannot be said that it was obtained by force. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners once the Respondent admitted her signature on the letter dated 10-10-1992 which was purporting to be a resignation letter, there was no need for the Petitioners to produce additional evidence that the said letter was submitted by the Respondent. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners the Learned 3 wp-2431-11.sxw Presiding Officer erred in treating the said resignation as forced resignation. The Learned Counsel also pointed out that the Respondent has not been able to show any document that she was wrongly asked to leave the services w.e.f. 10-10-1992. In substance the Petitioners contended that the impugned order passed by the Learned Presiding Officer is wrong and is required to be gone into. 6 Having considered the submissions, I am not inclined to accept the same. The Respondent had approached the Court contending that her services were orally terminated and she was made signed the document purported to be resignation. The text of the document is on page 113, the same reads as under: Shri Mahila Gruha Udyog Lijjat Papad Sanchalika Anaskar Me majhya swakhushine kamacha rajinama det aahe 7 The bare perusal of this document would clearly show that the said document has been procured by obtaining signature on this document. This fact is proved by the Respondent in her evidence. There is no material produced before the Court by the Petitioners to show that Respondent signed the said letter willingly. The Petitioners have relied upon a document dated nil at page 112 of the present Petition. The text of the said letter indicates that the Respondent wanted to tender a resignation and had sought her relief from the employment. If it was the case of the Petitioners that the Respondent tendered her resignation , it is really surprising as to how this document is not produced on record. This 4 wp-2431-11.sxw clearly shows that the Petitioners have not approached the Court with the clean hands. If the Petitioners were in possession of this document (page 112) nothing prevented them from producing the same before the Presiding Officer. No explanation is given as to why it was not produced before the Court. 8 The view taken by the presiding officer that the letter of resignation was obtained under compulsion, is required to be accepted. The Learned Presiding Officer has observed that the said document which is being treated as resignation by the Petitioners does not bare the signature of the Respondent and it merely bares the name of the Respondent. 9 In the normal course, it was necessary for the Petitioners to examine an employee who was looking after the administration of the Petitioners and he could have explained the circumstances under which the Respondent had left the job and as to how the said document purported to be letter of resignation came in the hands of the Petitioners. It is pertinent to note that before the Presiding Officer the Petitioners did not produce the original of the said document Exhibit O-10. If the Exhibit O-10 was a letter of resignation, it was necessary for the Petitioners to produce the original to clear all doubt. Merely because the said document came to be exhibited by itself does not mean that the Petitioners have explained the circumstances under which the said document came in the hands of the Petitioners. Looking to the facts of the matter it is clear that the Respondent did not leave the job on her own and that she was asked to leave the job and she was orally informed that she can not work from 10-10-1992. The case of the Respondent is made out. It is admitted by the 5 wp-2431-11.sxw Petitioners that Respondent was working with the Petitioners in some capacity or other in which situation it was necessary for the Petitioners to show as to from what date and under what circumstances the Respondent stopped working with the establishment. The story put up by the Petitioners about the resignation cannot be accepted. 10 For the aforesaid reasons, I am not inclined to interfere in the Award passed by the Learned Presiding Officer, 2nd Labour Court, Pune dated 19-7-2010. 11 The Petition is accordingly dismissed. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)