1 wp4926-11.doc ttm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4926 OF 2011 Nathiya Lakiya Sapta and 34 others .. Petitioners Vs. M/s.Standard Greases (Silvasa) and Others .. Respondents Mr.S.S.Redekar for the petitioners CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE: 9th AUGUST, 2011 PC: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The petitioners second party workmen challenge the order dated 17.3.2011 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Silvassa in Reference (IDA) No.7 of 2006 partly allowing their reference directing respondent first party company to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- each to the workers within one month and in default shall pay 12% interest on the amount till the realization of the amount. Few facts of the matter are as under: 2 wp4926-11.doc 3. The petitioners were working with the respondent company as Labour Contractors for the last 4-5 years. Thereafter, they tendered their resignation dt.6.12.2005 Ex.48. After tendering resignation some disputes started. The dispute was settled by the respondent company. On settlement of the said dispute, the petitioners gave an undertaking dt.29.3.2006 (Ex.39). On the basis of the said resignation and undertaking, the respondent company paid the dues to some of the workers who accepted. Remaining workers again approached the Labour Commissioner under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1949. The Labour Commissioner tried to settle the matter between petitioners and respondents. Because of intervention of the Labour Commissioner, some of the workers accepted their dues. As the petitioners refused to accept the offer of Rs.5000 each in full and final settlement,the Labour Commissioner made the following reference to the Court: “The second party workman should be re-instated with full back wages and continuity of service and all consequential benefits w.e.f. 6.12.2005 on as per the date shown in the statement annexed hereto.” 4. Thereafter, the petitioners filed their statement of claim dt. 3 wp4926-11.doc 28.11.2006 before the Labour Commissioner. In the said statement of claim, they disputed the resignation dt.6.12.2005 and undertaking dt.29.3.2006. They also disputed the payment of their dues. In the said reference, the respondent company filed their written statement dt.10.7.2008 contending that the petitioners workers tendered their resignation as well as undertaking and accepted their dues. In the said reference, petitioners filed affidavit in lieu of examination in chief of Kashiram J. Chawre and Raghu J.Bhimra. Respondent company filed their affidavit by way of oral evidence as per Order dt.18, Rules 4 & 5 of the Civil Procedure Code of Shaileshbhai Raviabhai Patel. 5. Considering the documentary evidence and the evidence laid by the parties, learned Presiding Officer of Labour Court, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Silvassa partly allowed the reference by award dt.17.3.2011 and directed respondent company to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- each to the petitioners. Hence, the present petition. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Presiding Officer of Labour Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the petitioners tendered their resignation dt. 4 wp4926-11.doc 6.12.2005 and undertaking dt.29.3.2006 voluntarily. He submits that both the witnesses examined by them specifically stated in their evidence that the resignation as well as undertaking were not signed by the petitioners. He further submits that the witnesses specifically stated in their evidence that the respondent company has not paid their legal dues also. Inspite of these facts, the Presiding Officer of Labour Court without directing respondent company to reinstate the petitioners in service with full back wages only directed respondent company to pay a sum of Rs.10000/- to each petitioner. On the basis of these submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners states that the impugned order passed by learned Presiding Officer dt. 17.3.2011 is liable to be set aside. 7. I have gone through the impugned order dt.17.3.2011, statement of claim filed by petitioners, written statement filed by respondent and evidence of three witnesses. 8. Admittedly, the petitioners witness Kashiram J. Chawre stated in cross examination that the undertaking dt.29.3.2006 is signed by him. He identified his signature on the said undertaking. Another witness Mr.Raghu J. Bhimra also 5 wp4926-11.doc admitted these facts. Therefore, it is very difficult to accept the contention raised by the petitioners that the resignation dt. 6.12.2005 and undertaking dt.29.3.2006 were not signed by the petitioners. Respondent company on the basis of resignation of all the petitioners and undertaking dt.29.3.2006 paid the legal dues to some of the employees who accepted. Once the resignation is accepted, there is no question of directing the respondent company to reinstate the petitioners in service. These facts are considered by the learned Presiding Officer in paras 13 and 14 of the impugned order dt.17.3.2011. 9. Considering these facts I do not find any substance in the present petition. Hence, writ petition is dismissed. (K.K.TATED,J.)