JUDGMENT - REBELLO F.I., J.: - Rule. Heard forthwith. The petitioner was in the employment of respondent No. 1 for about two decades. By letter dated 5th May, 1994 the petitioner addressed a letter to the Operating Accounting Manager, expressing his desire to resign from the services of the company by giving three months notice. The letter further states out that the petitioner be relieved immediately. On the very same day the General Manager (Personal) wrote to the petitioner with reference to the letter of resignation, accepting the same and confirmed having relieved the petitioner from the service of the company with the close of work of May 5, 1994. On that letter the petitioner put in an endorsement setting out that he agreed to and accepted the same. On May 15, 1994 the petitioner addressed a letter to the Vice President of respondent No. 1. In that letter he points out that he had served for over 20 years. It is further set out that Mrs. Sharmila Limaye had assumed that the petitioner on 29th November, 1993 had taken Rs. 1,350/- against car hire charges. Then there is explanation for the said amount. The petitioner then set out that there is a plot made by Ms. Sharmila Limaye, K. Ramachandran and Mr. V.B. Bhat to spoil his reputation. He also requested the Vice President of respondent No. 1 to reinstate the petitioner in service. The letter of 15th May, 1994 was addressed to B.S. Bllimoria, Vice President. On May 25, 1994 the petitioner addressed another letter to the Senior Vice President (Personnel) in which he set out that he was called to the Head Office to see Mr. Billimoria but when he arrived instead of Mr. Billimoria he was asked to see Mr. V.Y. Welanker, the Corporate Employee Relations Manager. When he entered the office of Mr. Welanker, Mr. S.K. Roy, the Audit Manager was also present in the cabin. He was informed by Mr. Welanker that he had allegedly committed fraud about which allegation he has shocked. He was asked to resign from the services of the company as otherwise his services will be terminated and further investigation and enquiry will be proceeded through Police authority or private agency. It is the case of the petitioner that he got intimidated with this threatening statement of Mr. Welankar and he was also totally and completely confused. Mr. Welankar further pressurised him to resign from the services of the company though he had sought for one more day for thinking. Mr. Welankar refused to allow him to leave the place unless he resigned. Mr. Welankar took his resignation under force and pressure. He therefore, requested to allow him to withdraw his resignation and take him back in the service of the company with full back wages with effect from 6th May, 1994. As the petitioner was not reinstated he filed Complaint (U.L.P.) No. 283 of 1994 before the Labour Court alleging unfair labour practice under Item No. 1(a), (b), (d) and (f) of Schedule IV of the I.D. Act. The respondent filed their reply denying the allegations. The petitioner examined himself. On behalf of the company Shri Welankar was examined. By judgment dated 15th December, 1998 the Labour Court was pleased to reject the complaint against which the petitioner preferred Revision Application No. 27 of 1999 before the Industrial Court at Mumbai which came to be dismissed by judgment and order dated 24th February, 2004. The petitioner by the present petition challenges the said orders.

2. At the hearing of this petition on behalf of the petitioner their learned Counsel submits as under: -

1. It is submitted that under the conditions of services, the termination of service by either side was set out in terms of the letter of appointment dated January 1, 1994. The clause regarding termination read as under: -

(a) This engagement may be terminated by either party giving to the other, at any time, notice in writing of three months, or at our option, by paying you remuneration for three months in lieu of notice and expiring at any date.

(b)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document