The main legal point established is that the authenticity of evidence and the timing of legal recourse are crucial in determining the validity of claims regarding coerced resignation.

ORDER :

1. The workman in W.P.No.26696/2003 and the management in W.P.No.1151/2004 have challenged the award dated 24.09.2003 in Industrial Dispute LCID No.6/2001 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad. The award was disposed of by the Tribunal with the following observations:

“19. It may be noted that even according to the Petitioner he was appointed on 25.4.89 and his probation was declared on 6.8.90. During his short span of service he also became a General Secretary during the year 1991-92. He says that he was not called for discussion. Ultimately he was called for discussion. Instead of discussing it with the Management he went on issuing letters about the alleged malpractices of the Company he was asked to come, he did not come from Haryana. Ex.W7 is proved to be fake. It becomes really difficult for the Management to cope up with such persons even if it is taken for granted that such resignation letter was sent thinking Ex.W7 to be written by Mr. Ramana, MW2 is still took him 10 months to submit the resignation. Meanwhile he was unauthorisedly absent. It is also cut in evidence that no discrimination was shown to him that his medical advance was sanctioned on the very next day as admitted by WW1 himself. Perhaps having been elected as General Secretary, he acted on high profile and it may be correct that Ex.W4 is the period during which his C.R.Ex.W4 correspondence to the letter he has written Ex.W13 to W16. any way I feel that no doubt there is some element of coercion on him but his having approached the Hon’ble High Court after lapse of 4 years and then approaching this Court in 2000 and his admission that he has been to Dubai thrice and going for the fourth time, I am of the opinion that even if there is some element of coercion as stated by me, in view of the latch of delay of 7 years in approaching the Court and his behavior, it will not be conducive that he should work again in the same factory. But as there is some element of coercion which may not stand the scrutiny of complete technical coercion, I am of the opinion that as he has worked from 25th March, 1993 almost for a period of five years. Hence, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice will be met if he is given five months pay as compensation for the five years service he has rendered taking his gross pay as of January, 2003 and multiplying it by five (He was on leave in March, etc. his pay of January, 2003 is taken). The amount shall be paid within 30 days after the publication of this award.”

Thus, concisely the important observations of the lower Tribunal are as follows:

(i) The petitioner was appointed on 25.04.1989 in the respondent Steel Plant and worked at Jaggaiahpet Lime Stone, VSP Mines and his probation was declared on 06.08.1990.

(ii) During the short span of service, he became General Secretary during the year 1992-93.

(iii) He tendered Ex.W8 - Protest Resignation Letter dated 28.12.1992 on the alleged ground that Sri B.V.Ramana, Manager (Mech.-MW2) issued Ex.W7 – Threatening Letter dated 13.02.1992 to him asking him to submit resignation. Though it is alleged that the resignation letter tendered per force and the management in order to conduct an enquiry on the aspect of unfair labour practice did not call him for discussion, however, in fact he was called for discussions and instead of discussing with the management and sorting out the issues, he went on sending letters to higher authorities like Deputy Prime Minister, Director General of Mines etc. making complaints against the respondent authorities alleging malpractices.

(iv) Ex.W7 letter proved to be fake while it was referred to GEQD vide Ex.M15.

(v) It became really difficult for management to cope up with such persons. Even if it is taken for granted that the resignation letter was sent thinking Ex.W7 was written by Mr. B.V. Ramana (MW2), still the petitioner took ten months to submit the resignation and meanwhi