ORDER :

1. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 02.03.2016 passed in W.P. No.7634 of 2008, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition, the writ petitioner has preferred the instant writ appeal.

2. The parties will be referred to as per their ranking in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge.

3. Brief facts of the case are as under: The respondent-Workman was appointed by the petitioner on 01.10.1986 as an Office boy. While he was thus working, he claims to have developed back pain due to which he could not attend the work regularly. He also underwent treatment. Thereafter, when he recovered and sought to report to duty on 06.03.1995, he was not permitted to work. Hence, the respondent-workman filed a complaint before the Labour Commissioner. The petitioner-Management, in reply, contended that the question of refusal of work does not arise as the respondent-workman had tendered his resignation on 17.03.1995. The conciliation was not taken up and the same did not proceed to its logical conclusion. In the circumstance, the respondent-workman raised a dispute under Section 10(4A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as ‘I.D. Act’) in I.D. No.38/1995 before II Additional Labour Court, Bangaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘Labour Court’) with regard to the refusal of employment and the Labour Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether first party proves that his services were terminated illegally by the II party on 6.3.1995 ?

2. Whether the industrial dispute is maintainable ?

3. What relief first party is entitled to ? ”

4. The Labour Court, based on the evidence, declined to accept the theory of resignation of the respondent-workman on 17.03.1995 and its acceptance on 18.03.1995 as there was no evidence to that effect. On analysis of such evidence, the Labour Court passed the following order on 01.02.2008:

“1. Dispute raised by the First Party by filing claim statement under Section 10(4A) ID.38/1995 is allowed. It is held that II party is not justified in terminating the services of the First Party. It is directed that II party to reinstate the First party back into service to his original post from 6.3.1995 itself, with continuity of service. However, first party is entitled to get merely 50% of backwages from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement with other consequential benefits.

2. II party is directed to pay cost of Rs.5,000/to the first party.

3. II party to comply the award within thirty days from the date of publication of the award.

4. Draw award accordingly. ”

5. The order of the Labour Court dated 01.02.2008 was challenged by the petitioner in W.P. No.7634 of 2008. The contentions that were urged by the II Party i.e., the petitioner-Management before the Labour Court in I.D. No.38 of 1995 were reiterated before the learned Single Judge. The contention that was urged by the petitioner-Management was that since the respondent-workman had tendered his resignation on 17.03.1995, the question of refusal of work does not at all arise. The learned Single Judge considered the fact that before the Labour Court, the respondent-workman was examined as W.W.1 and relied upon the documents at Exs.W.1 to W.18 and the petitioner–Management examined a witness as M.W.1 and relied upon the documents at Exs. M1 to M16. On analysing the same, the Labour Court had passed the order. The sole contention of the petitioner-Management before the learned Single Judge was that the respondent-workman had resigned on 17.03.1995 and that fact was not established. There was no other manner in which the services of the respondent-workman could be terminated, though the allegation was made about his unauthorized absence.

6. The contention of the respondent-workman that there was refusal of employment was substantiated before the Labour Court as well as before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge observed that if the resignation is alleged to be proved, all