:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1522 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 1522 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 1522 OF 2008 Vinayak D. Dhamapurkar ..Petitioner versus M/s. Shree Ram Mills Ltd. & Anr. ..Respondents Ms. Ketaki Rege with Mr. Vinod Shetty for the Petitioner. Mr. S. P. Singh for the Respondent No. 1. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 21ST JULY, 2008. DATE : 21ST JULY, 2008. DATE : 21ST JULY, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard. 2. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 3. The petitioner has challenged the Order of the Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Mumbai, dismissing his Appeal. 4. In these proceedings, the petitioner had claimed for monetary benefits arising out of the termination of his service on the basis of the :2: V.R.S. According to the respondents, the petitioner has resigned on 5.4.1996 voluntarily and there was no question of VRS. The respondents have stated that his resignation letter was accepted immediately. 5. However, it appears from the Order of the Appellate Court that there is a serious confusion about the petitioner’s resignation letter. The Appellate Court has accepted that resignation in question was tendered on 5.4.1996. However, it has come to the conclusion that it was accepted on 1.7.1996. According to the Appellate Court it is also admitted by the petitioner. There is no basis for this finding. 6. Letter on record shows that the respondents had accepted the petitioner’s resignation dated 5.4.1996 by a letter dated 22.1.1998 although from 1.7.1996. This would suggest that the resignation is with retrospective effect. However, the Appellate Court has recorded the finding that the petitioner’s resignation was accepted w.e.f. 1.7.1996 and therefore not with retrospective effect. :3: 7. The learned counsel for the respondents fairly admitted that there seems to be a mistake committed by the lower Appellate Court in this regard. 8. In this view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The Industrial Court, Maharashtra is directed to record a clear finding on the issue. The Industrial Court, Maharashtra, is directed to decide the matter within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the Writ. Rule answered accordingly. (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)