(Write Appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 praying to set aside the order passed in Writ Petition No.38507/2003 dated 3.10.2007)

P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.

This is a pathetic case which reflects as to how the Legal Representatives (young widow and a minor child) of the deceased-workman, who submitted his resignation on 27.9.1995 offering himself to resign with effect from 30.11.1995 was permitted to continue in service till 6.12.1995, on which day he withdrew his resignation; but, thereafter on 6.12.1995 after the working hours the Management accepted the resignation and sent it by post relieving him from service after the working hours of 6.12.1995 i.e., with effect from 7.12.1995, are dragged from pillar to post even to receive the minimum reasonable compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in lumpsum, as the employee died during the pendency of the writ petition.

2. The appellant-management has preferred the present appeal against the order dated 3rd October, 2007 of the learned single Judge made in Writ Petition No.38507/2003, where the appellant-management had challenged the Award dated 16.05.2003 in A.I.D. No.335/2001 on the file of the Additional Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, under the following facts and circumstances of the case:

2.1) The workman submitted his resignation on 27.9.1995 to the Factory Manager of the Appellant-company, which reads:

“Sir,

Sub: Tendering of resignation.

This is to inform you that I am tendering resignation to my service.

I request you to please relieve me from my service with effect from 30.11.1995.

I am very grateful to you and the Company for allowing me to render my service all

these years.

This letter of resignation will come into effect from 30.11.1995 onwards.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

B. Dayananda Bengre”

2.2) But, the workman was permitted to continue in service till 6.12.1995. On 6.12.1995 at about 1.30 p.m he left the place of work on personal reason.

2.3) On the same day ie., on 6.12.1995 the workman withdrew his letter of resignation offered on 27.9.1995 which reads:

“Sir,

Sub: Withdrawal of my resignation letter regarding.

1. I had submitted the resignation letter, requesting you to accept the same with effect from 30.11.1995 and to relieve me with effect from the said date.

2. For the best reasons known to the management, my resignation has not been accepted till today and still I am continuing in employment.

3. Now, I am not interested to resign to my job, which is my only source of livelihood. I am very much interested to continue in employment. Hence, this withdrawal of resignation letter. Therefore, I most respectfully request you kindly receive this withdrawal of resignation letter and not to give effect to my resignation letter and further to permit me to continue in employment in the interest of justice. This letter is sent to you by Courier, as I am not well and I am under treatment.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-“

2.4) On the next day viz., 7.12.1995 the respondent-workman informed the appellant-management that he came on gate-pass at 1.30 p.m and as the doctor advised him to take rest for 10 days. Accordingly, enclosing a medical certificate, the workman requested for medical leave for 10 days.

2.5) The appellant-management admittedly, by letter dated 8.12.1995 acknowledged the receipt of letter of withdrawal of resignation dated 6.12.1995 on 7.12.1995; however, the management chose to inform the workman that he had been relieved on 6.12.1995 itself i.e, after closing hours of his shift.

2.6) Under this factual matrix of the case, the Tribunal rendered a finding that only on 6.12.1995 after closing hours the management had accepted the resignation letter, and that the workman withdrew his resignation letter even before receiving the communication of the acceptance of the resignation. The Labour Court held that withdrawing the resignation letter is valid, because the management relieved the workman from service only after th