Both these writ petitions preferred by the same employer/management can be disposed of by a common judgment as they arose out of identical fact situation.

The petitioner is a private limited company having its registered office at Chennai. It is engaged in the business of manufacture, supply, installation, erection, testing and commissioning of electric lifts. It acquired a part of these business activities from West and Crompton Engineering Limited, with whom initially the 2nd respondent – workman, was employed. The 2nd respondent-workman was employed as a fitter. In January, 2011, it was reported against the 2nd respondent that he had taken away an inverter belonging to the petitioner company and kept it at his home. It was also further reported against the 2nd respondent – workman that he along with another workman (who is the 2nd respondent in the connected writ petition), claimed overtime wages for 60 hours for completing certain works and a bill in that regard has been raised in the name of a subcontractor who has been paid accordingly a sum of Rs.13,200/- by the petitioner company. It is alleged that these two workmen collected the said money from the subcontractor in turn. Thus, they played fraud on the company. It was further alleged that the workmen had allowed the contractor to sell away certain properties of the petitioner company as scrap, thus realizing a sum of Rs.4,500/- and later on both the workmen have participated in a party hosted by the said contractor. Thus, it is alleged that the workmen have enabled an outside agency to sell away properties of the petitioner company without its knowledge or sanction and the workmen did not choose to inform the petitioner company about the whole transaction. It is stated that both the workmen were questioned by the Assistant Branch Manager with regard to their misdeeds on 23.1.2001 and promptly the workmen admitted the irregularities indulged in by them by addressing a letter jointly. It is also alleged that both the workmen have addressed two letters separately on the same day viz., 23.1.2001 admitting their guilt and prayed to be excused for their lapses. However, it is further stated that both the workmen have submitted individual letters of resignation on 24.1.2001. It is specifically stated by the deponent in paragraph 4(h) of the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition that he has instantaneously accepted orally both the resignations and issued two letters on 24.1.2001, the copies of which are filed as Annexures P-6 and P-7 respectively, the receipt of which has been acknowledged by the workmen concerned.

Both the workmen had been relieved from the work on that day itself. However, both the workmen addressed a letter each on 30.01.2001 alleging that the letter of resignation dated 24.01.2001 was obtained under duress and threat by the Assistant Branch Manager. The workmen have also issued two separate telegrams on 2.2.2001 and they followed them up with two separate legal notices. The workmen have sought to withdraw the resignation letters offered by them on 24.1.2001. With a view to finalise the acceptance of resignation and also relieving both the workmen, a letter dated 27.1.2001 was addressed by the writ petitioner company from its Head Office at Chennai.

Thereafter, the workmen have invoked the provision available under Section 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and respectively raised the industrial dispute concerned. It is stated that upon receipt of notice from the Labour Court, Guntur, the petitioner company entered appearance through a counsel who filed his Vakalat on behalf of the petitioner company, but unfortunately on account of his further nonappearance in the matter, the writ petitioner company was set ex parte by an order dated 12.10.2001 by the Labour Court and thereafter the evidence of the workmen was recorded and an ex parte award was passed on 13.11.2001. The said award was published in terms of Section 17 of the