A resignation, if properly communicated and accepted, constitutes valid termination, challenging the Labour Court's finding of illegal termination when the evidence suggests otherwise.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. The present writ petition has been filed by M/S NNS ONLINE PVT. LTD-petitioner-management challenging the impugned order dated 20.02.2020 in LIR No. 2313/2017, whereby the learned Presiding officer, Labour Court, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi inter alia held that the services of the respondent No.2-workman was terminated by the petitioner-management illegally and therefore the petitioner-management was directed to reinstate the respondent No.2-workman at the same post i.e. News Coordinator with continuity of service and other consequential benefits within a period of one month from the date of publication of the said award.

2. The award has been challenged pre-dominantly on the ground that the impugned order is contrary to law and facts of the case and the learned Labour Court has failed to appreciate material facts as brought out in the proceedings. The plea of the petitioner-management is that the respondent No.2-workman had resigned from his work on 01.12.2013 and the resignation was duly accepted by the petitioner-management. It has been submitted that the learned Labour Court has fallen into grave error inter alia holding that the resignation has not been accepted by the petitioner-management following proper procedure while accepting the resignation of the respondent No.2-workman. It has been submitted that no procedure has been prescribed or enshrined defined under the law for the petitioner-organization for accepting the resignation.

3. It has been submitted that after the resignation, the respondent No.2-workman was no longer an employee of the petitioner. It has been further submitted that the learned Labour Court also failed to take into account that immediately after his resignation, the respondent No.2-workman had duly withdrawn his Provident Fund. The petitioner has further submitted that the learned Labour Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent No.2-workman has started his own fortnightly newspaper in 2014 and the said fact was admitted by the respondent No.2-Workman in his cross examination. It has been submitted that therefore the finding of the learned Labour Court that the respondent No.2-workman was an employee of the petitioner-management till 30.06.2016 is totally contrary to the record.

4. The petitioner-management has further submitted that respondent No.2-workman did not produce iota of any evidence on the record to substantiate his claim that he was an employee of the petitioner-management since 01.01.2006. It has been submitted that the learned Labour Court has wrongly drawn an adverse inference on the petitioner-management for not producing any document as per Section 11 (3) (b) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (`the I.D. Act'), as the petitioner-management had produced the said documents. It has been submitted that the respondent No.2-workman did not mention the said documents in his evidence affidavit.

5. The petitioner-management further submitted that the learned Labour Court failed to appreciate the fact that even Ex. WW1/4 (copy of ESIC insured data form issued by the petitioner-management) produced by the respondent No.2 itself, shows the date of appointment of the workman as 01.06.2009. It has further been submitted that Ex. WW1/5 (copy of the identity card) shows the date of validity upto 31.12.2011. The petitioner-management has submitted that the finding of the learned Labour Court