The court upheld the Labour Court's decision that resignation was valid and voluntary, not constituting illegal termination under the Industrial Disputes Act.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. :

1. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner/workman challenging the impugned award dated 30.09.2019 passed in LID No.308/2016 by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi, titled `Prince Mourya vs. M/s Cadila Healthcare Limited', whereby the learned labour court on the basis of the claim petition and the reply filed by the management, framed the following issues:

1 Whether the services of workman have been terminated by the management illegally/unjustifiably on 03.08.2015 in violation of provisions of Section 25 F, G & H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? If so, to what effect and to what relief workman is entitled to? OPW

2 Whether the workman has himself resigned from the services of the management on 24.07.2015? OPM

3 Relief.

2. Learned Labour Court after considering the entire material on record inter alia held that the petitioner had not been able to prove that his services were terminated by the management illegally and unjustifiably in violation of provisions of section 25 F, G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Learned labour court has also returned a finding that the management had successfully been able to prove that the petitioner/workman had himself resigned from the services of the management on 24.07.2015.

3. The petitioner has challenged the award on the ground that the same is perverse and liable to be set aside. It has been submitted that the petitioner never resigned from the services of the respondent/management. It has been submitted that the award is liable to be set aside as the email, printout of the resignation filed by the respondent were never entered on his official portal by the petitioner. It has been submitted that the respondents who filed the e-mail printout have neither filed any affidavit nor certificate along with the said print out as mandatorily prescribed under Section 65 (B) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972, to buttress their contentions. The petitioner has submitted that even the e-mail printout dated 24.07.2015 of resignation reflects that the petitioner's resignation may be accepted with effect from 31.07.2015, whereas the acceptance of resignation vide return e- mail dated 24.07.2015 has been filed by the respondent only. The petitioner has stated that the management did not lead any evidence in support of their case and therefore the evidence produced by the petitioner remained unassailed and unchallenged.

4. The notice in the present case was issued to the respondent vide order 02.09.2021. As per order dated 15.02.2022, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that he does not wish to file counter affidavit and would rely upon the records of the learned Industrial Tribunal.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that the he was appointed as a trainee medical representative by the respondent/management on 06.05.2014 and was put on probation for a period of six months vide letter dated 01.02.2015. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on 22.07.2015, Mr. Neeraj Giri along with other field managers and regional business managers, threatened the petitioner and took him to a closed room and forcibly took his employer email id and password. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted on 24.07.2015, an email was allegedly sent using the petitioner's official email id and password, submitting his resignation from services w.e.f. 31.07.2015. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the same was accepted vide email dated 24.07.2015 and vide letter date