The burden of proof lies on the employer to establish the voluntary nature of the workman's resignation, and the court emphasized the principles governing the payment of back wages.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner employer challenging the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Jamnagar with following prayers;

“(a) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari and/ or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature quashing and setting aside the impugned award dated 31.03.2008 passed by the Labour Court, Jamnagar in Reference (LCJ) No.127/ 1995 at Annexure – A;

(b) During pendency of hearing and final disposal of the petition, stay the operation, implementation and effect of the award dated 31.03.2008 passed by the Labour Court, Jamnagar in Reference (LCJ) No.127/1995 at Annexure – A;

(c) …..”

2. By impugned judgment and award dated 31.03.2008, the Labour Court directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with 75% back wages with continuity of service.

2.1 Petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 manufacturing Salt, Soda ash and other chemicals. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent – workman was appointed in Traction Department. He was served with the charge-sheet dated 20.07.1993 for alleged misconduct and unauthorisedly remaining away from the work after recess hours and claiming wages without doing any work. On 21.01.1994, an inquiry proceedings were taken place, where the respondent – workman remained present and admitted the charges and pleaded leniency. On the basis of the same, the inquiry officer submitted his report dated 26.04.1994. As per such report, charges were held to be proved on the basis of admission. On the basis of such inquiry and charges being proved, the respondent workman came to be dismissed vide order dated 12.05.1994. It is the case of the petitioner that an order of dismissal along with the notice pay was sent to the respondent by registered post ad, as such, he has not accepted the same. However, on 16.05.1994, the respondent went to the petitioner’s factory and collected copy of dismissal order with notice pay. At that time, he tendered his resignation by representing that he had got another job and his resignation may be accepted so that he can get the service certificate. It is further the case of the petitioner that his resignation was accordingly accepted. Respondent workman has also withdrawn his P.F. accumulation.

3.1 After being dismissed vide order dated 12.05.1994 and thereafter tendering resignation on 16.05.1994, respondent – workman raised industrial dispute being Reference (LCJ) No.127 of 1995 before the Labour Court, Jamnagar.

3.2 In his statement of claim, respondent has alleged that he was dismissed from service without issuing any show cause notice and that being an uneducated workman, his signature was taken on a blank paper while making payment of notice pay. Employer being petitioner herein filed its written statement along with all the relevant documents against the statement of claim filed by the respondent – workman. In the statement of claim the respondent workman challenged the legality and validity of inquiry on ground of breach of principle of natural justice. However, in purshish filed by him at Exh.65 before the Labour Court, he admitted the inquiry to be legal and proper but not accepted the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer. He also alleged that his signature was taken on blank paper and that he was unemployed. He also denied his signature on the application Exh.45 and the order of dismissal at Exh.51. He also denied signature below Statement of Claim at Exh.2. He admitted that he has received an amount of provident fund and that he studied upto 3rd standard and he can read.

3.3 In support of their case, Law officer of the petitioner company was examined. In his evidence, he has supported the case of the petitioner.

3.4 It is also on record that petitioner has filed Criminal Case No.1584 of 1995 against the respondent workman for the offences under Sections 408, 500, 193 and 209 of the Indian Penal Code. As such, in this case,