( 1 ) IN this writ petition, the petitioner - workman, challenges the award of the additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Addl. Labour Court, Hyderabad in I. D. No. 251 of 1993 dated 29-12-1993 and seeks reinstatement into the services of the 2nd respondent company with full back wages and continuity of service.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was formerly a maintenance Fitter in the 2nd respondent - company. On 5-6-1989 the petitioner s scooter is alleged to have been checked on his return from duty and found to contain some bearings. A police complaint was lodged in C. C. No. 194/89 against the petitioner and one Sri Muralikrishna. The petitioner is said to have confessed his guilt on 6-6-1989 and to have submitted his resignation (which the petitioner contends was under coercion ). The petitioner was issued a charge memo on 13-6-1989 to which he is said to have given his explanation on 22-6-1989, (received by the 2nd respondent on 24-6-1989) whereby he is also said to have revoked his resignation submitted earlier on 6-6-1989. The 2nd respondent, issued a telegram on 22-6-1989, accepting the resignation of the petitioner. The 2nd respondent informed the petitioner vide letter dated 29-6-1989 that since his resignation was accepted on 22-6-1989 his request for revocation of the same was not accepted. The petitioner was acquitted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Medchal by order in C. C. No. 207/89 dated 5-8-1991.

( 3 ) THE petitionerfiled an application under section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum- additional Labour Court, Hyderabad in i. D. No. 251 of 1993, seeking reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. Before the Addl. Industrial Tribunal, the petitioner contended that he had neither submitted any resignation voluntarily nor had given any letter confessing his guilt and that he had withdrawn them all in his explanation dated 22-6-1989. He contended that several letters were taken from him, threatening to hand him over to police, and that in the absence of any enquiry being held pursuant to the charge memo dated 13-6-1989, the petitioner could not have been terminated from service, more so in view of his acquittal in the criminal case instituted by the 2nd respondent against him.

( 4 ) THE case of the 2nd respondent - company before the Industrial Tribunal was that the petitioner had voluntarily resigned and left the services of the 2nd respondent, and since there was no termination of service, the petition filed under Section 2-A (2) of the industrial Disputes Act was not maintainable. The 2nd respondent contended that the petitioner along with one Murali Krishna had committed theft on 5-6-1989, that 14 new bearings were recovered from the dicky of his scooter on the next day in his presence and that a police complaint was lodged against the petitioner in C. C. No. 194/89. The 2nd respondent contended that the petitioner had, in a statement, confessed his guilt on 6-6-1989, had submitted his resignation and that the management had accepted the resignation taking a lenient view instead of proceeding with the enquiry. It was reiterated by the 2nd respondent that no force or pressure was exerted on the petitioner to submit his resignation and that since his resignation was accepted on 22-6-1989 the question of permitting him to withdraw the same did not arise.

( 5 ) BEFORE the Addl. Industrial Tribunal, the petitioner examined himself as W. W. 1 and marked Exs. W-1 to W-10. The management officials of the 2nd respondent were examined as M. W. 1 to M. W. 4 and documents M-1 to m-4 were marked as exhibits.

( 6 ) THE Addl. Industrial Tribunal, on a detailed appreciation of the evidence on record disbelieved the petitioner s contention that he was threatened to give a letter of resignation. The Additional Industrial Tribunal held that if this were so, nothing prevented the petitioner from protesting when he was forced to write the resignation letter and that his sile

Click Here to Read the rest of this document