D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

( 1 ) RULE. By consent of Counsel, returnable forthwith. At the request of and with the consent of all Counsel, taken up for final hearing. The Petitioner joined the services of the First respondent at the Tarapur Atomic Power Station as a Lower division Clerk on 20th September 1990. The appointment of the petitioner was on compassionate grounds since it has been stated that her father had died in harness in 1987. The case of the petitioner is that in the middle of April 2003 she was in a mentally disturbed state. The Petitioner has averred that this was "on account of (a) character assassination campaign all around including in her office arising out of a misunderstanding that she, a married woman with two children eloped with a younger bachelor colleague though she had gone to Pune with him at his request to help him in a family matter of arranging a marriage alliance for his sister".

( 2 ) THE Petitioner was absent from duty from 25th April 2003. It has been stated that the Petitioner had to undergo medical treatment physically and psychologically and she was certified to be fit to work by the Civil Surgeon at Thane on 6th November 2003. In the meantime, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner and a chargesheet was issued on 20th May 2003. On 25th June 2003, the Petitioner tendered her resignation from service. The disciplinary authority dropped the disciplinary proceedings and the resignation of the Petitioner was accepted on 27th June 2003. The case of the Petitioner is that after she recovered from a state of mental depression and illness, she approached the First Respondent on 8th November 2003 with a certificate of the Civil Surgeon with a request that she should be allowed to withdraw her resignation which had been tendered under pressure and in a state of mental sickness. Since this request was not acceded to, the Petitioner approached the regional Labour Commissioner (Central) on 15th April 2004 by raising an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Conciliation Officer declined to intervene by a letter dated 20th April 2004. The Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) has, by his communication, informed the Petitioner that no cognizance would be taken of the complaint of the Petitioner seeking reinstatement in service "since it is a case of resignation". This order has been challenged by the Petitioner in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.

( 3 ) ON behalf of the Petitioner it has been submitted that in view of the well settled principle of law, it was not open to the competent Authority in the Ministry of Labour of the Government of India to enter upon the merits of the industrial dispute particularly when a reference to adjudication has been sought under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, it has been submitted that the authority had overstepped the limits of its jurisdiction by entering upon the merits of the claim of the petitioner, inasmuch as the claim was neither stale nor patently frivolous within the meaning of those expressions as explained in judgments of the Supreme Court. On the other hand, on behalf of the Respondents it has been submitted that the resignation of the petitioner was voluntarily submitted and it came to be accepted by the Competent Authority. The Petitioner thereafter has been paid all her terminal dues including gratuity and Provident Fund. Hence, it was submitted that there was no merit in the contention of the petitioner.

( 4 ) IN Bombay Union of Journalists vs. State of Bombay, air 1964 SC 1617, the Supreme Court enunciated the role and ambit of the jurisdiction of the appropriate Government to refer an industrial dispute to adjudication under Section 10 (1) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Mr. Justice Gajendragadkar, as the learned Chief Justice then was, speaking for the Bench observed thus:"it would not be possible to accept the plea that the appropriate Gove