The withdrawal of resignation after its acceptance is not to be entertained, and the employee's silence for a considerable period can be detrimental to his case.

1. This matter has been heard at length on 25/07/2016 and today.

2. The petitioner/Corporation is aggrieved by the judgment of the Labour Court dated 24/07/2008, by which Complaint (ULP) No. 31/2003, filed by the respondent, has been allowed and the Labour Court has passed the following order :

“1. Complaint is allowed.

2. It is declared that the respondents have engaged in unfair labour practice as per Item 1 (a and b) of Schedule IV of M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act and respondents should desist from the same.

3. The respondents are directed to reinstate and absorb the complainant by accepting his proposal of reinstatement even after resignation from service by virtue of circular dtd.04/04/1981 and precedents followed by the respondents on the same scale of driver till he attains the age of retirement.

4. The services of complainant be treated as continued from 01/02/1999 on the same scale of Rs.4,720/- and he be paid all the differences of wages and that wages from 01/02/1999 till the age of retirement with interest thereon @ 12% per annum from the date of judgment till its realisation.

5. No order as to costs.”

3. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the judgment of the Industrial Court dated 14/01/2010 by which Revision (ULP) No.21/2008, filed by the petitioner/ Corporation, has been partly allowed and the following order has been passed :

“1. Revision is partly allowed and the operative order passed in the impugned complaint is modified as follows :

“(a) The complaint is allowed.

(b) It is declared that the petitioner/original respondents have engaged in unfair labour practice as per Item 1(a) and (b) of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act and respondents should desist from the same.

(c) The respondents are directed to reinstate the complainant with continuity of service in the post of peon by protecting his original pay of the post of driver till the complainant attains the age of retirement.

(d) The respondents are directed to pay 25% of the back wages w.e.f. 01/02/1999 with interest @ 6% per annum only.

(e) Respondents shall pay cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant”

2. The petitioner shall pay amount of Rs.500/- cost of this revision to the complainant.

3. Inform the learned Judge, Labour Court, Latur accordingly.

4. Record and proceeding be sent back immediately and both parties are directed to appear before the Hon'ble Labour Court, Latur.”

4. The undisputed facts of the case are as under :

(a) The respondent/employee joined as a “Driver” with the Corporation in 1981.

(b) On 01/02/1999, he was removed from service due to poor eyesight.

(c) He was given an alternate job as a “Peon” on 20/05/1999.

(d) The respondent submitted a resignation dated 20/06/2000, specifically praying for acceptance of the resignation from the very next day 21/06/2000.

(e) The respondent/employee claimed that his signature was obtained on a blank paper and a resignation was subsequently typed thereon.

(f) The Corporation passed an order on 08/08/2000 and accepted the resignation of the employee w.e.f. 10/08/2000 and removed his name from the muster roll as a “Peon”, which was communicated to him.

(g) For the first time, after 6 months, the respondent filed an application on 05/01/2001 claiming reemployment on the ground that he was forced to resign.

(h) In the said application, he has not stated that his signature was obtained on a blank paper. He has, in fact stated that because he had to repay amounts to other persons, he resigned from service so as to collect his legal dues.

(i) The respondent preferred Complaint (ULP) No.31/2003 alleging that he was forced to resign on 20/06/2000.

5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that after acceptance of resignation and upon payment of legal dues by virtue of the order dated 08/08/2000, there could not have been an application for withdrawal of resignation after 7 months on 05/01/2001. Had the respondent applied for withdrawing his resignation before it was accepted on 08/08/2000, which is practically after about