IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13.4.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.9921 of 2001 Pachaiyappa's Trust rep. by its Secretary .. Petitioner Vs. 1. V.Govindaswamy 2. The Presiding Officer II Additional Labour Court Chennai – 600 104. .. Respondents Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records and quash the order dated 12.8.1998 passed by the second respondent in I.D.No.446 of 1995. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Devendran For Respondents : Mr.N.Manoharan for 1st respondent ORDER The petitioner is the Management of Pachaiyappa's Trust. They have come forward to challenge the award passed by the second respondent/Labour Court in I.D.No.446 of 1995, dated 12.8.1998. By the impugned award, the Labour Court held that the first respondent's non-employment was not justified and therefore, he was entitled to reinstatement with service continuity, back-wages and other attendant benefits. 2. When the matter came up on 15.5.2001, this Court directed notice of motion and also granted interim stay subject to the condition that the petitioner/Trust complies with the payment of last drawn wages pending disposal of the writ petition. Subsequently, the writ petition was admitted and interim stay already granted was made absolute. 3. Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel for the first respondent states that in order to avoid payment under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, the first respondent has been reinstated and he is in service even today. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. The facts leading to the present case are as follows: The petitioner is a Trust running several educational institutions. One such institution is the Pachaiyappa College at Chennai – 600 030. The first respondent was appointed as Sweeper in the College Hostel with effect from 1.12.1976 and was also allowed to work as Watchman. It is claimed that the first respondent due to his ill-health sent a letter dated 11.4.1991 stating that his health condition is not fit to continue in the job and he may be relieved with effect from 1.6.1991. He also sent another letter dated 9.8.1991 to relieve him from 10.8.1991. But the Warden of the Hostel did not allow him to go away and allowed him to work till 30.6.1992. But thereafter, the first respondent did not attend duty and stayed away from work. However, curiously the so-called resignation letter of the first respondent was accepted after three years, namely on 27.1.1994 and the first respondent was sought to be relieved with retrospective effect from 30.6.1992. 5. The first respondent raised a dispute regarding his non- employment and subsequently, on the strength of the failure report given by the Conciliation Officer, filed a claim statement before the second respondent. The second respondent/Labour Court registered the case as I.D.No.446 of 1995 and issued notice to the petitioner/Trust. The petitioner/Trust filed a counter statement. 6. Before the Labour Court, the first respondent examined himself as W.W.1 and also filed four documents which were marked as Exs.W1 to W4. On the side of the petitioner/Trust, one Govindarajan was examined as M.W.1 and five documents were filed and they were marked as Exs.M1 to M5. 7. The Labour Court, on the analysis of the materials, came to the conclusion that the workman was prevented from reporting to work from 30.6.1992 and the so-called resignation given during the year 1991 is not valid in the eye of law, as it is sought to be accepted after a period of three years, and granted the normal relief of reinstatement with other benefits. 8. Before the Labour Court, on the side of the first respondent, a judgment of the Gujarat High Court in District Panchayat, Junagadh v. Manharlal Mulchand Gandhi and another, 1996 Lab. I.C. NOC 11 was relied upon to contend that resignation which was accepted long after it was presented will have no validity. 9. This Court in C.B.M.College v. V.R.Palanisamy and others, [1997] 2 MLJ 639, more or less in identical circumstances, held that an anti-dated letter of resignation obtained from a non-teaching staff of the college cannot be accepted long after the same was submitted. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ In the light of the above, there is no case made out to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition stands dismissed. The petitioner/ Trust is directed to implement the award in its entirety within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar sasi To: The Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, Chennai – 600 104. 1 cc To Mr.N.Manoharan, Advocate, SR.24207. W.P.No.9921 of 2001 RSN(CO) RVL 20.04.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/