Voluntary resignation not sufficiently substantiated, and employee did not qualify as a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act.

JUDGMENT :

M.K. THAKKER, J.

1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.Mishra waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent.

2. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award dated 04.04.2022 passed by the learned Labour Court, Anand in Reference (T) No.68 of 2014, whereby the petitioner has been directed to reinstate the respondent with full back wages and costs of Rs.2,000/-.

3. It is the case of the present petitioner that the respondent was working as a Senior Manager in the Quality Control Department pursuant to the letter of appointment dated 16.03.2012, and that he resigned from service on 17.09.2013. The resignation was accepted by the petitioner, and the respondent was relieved from service on 29.09.2013. After receiving all dues, the respondent filed the Reference after a period of more than eight months, alleging illegal termination on the ground that the resignation was forcibly obtained by the petitioner’s department. The learned Labour Court, after considering the submissions, awarded the Reference in favour of the respondent, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.

4. Heard the learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave for the petitioner and the learned advocate Mr.U.T.Mishra for the respondent.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Dave submits that, as the respondent was serving on the post of Senior Manager, which is evident from the appointment letter, the issue has already been decided by this Court holding that the respondent does not fall within the definition under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“the I.D. Act” hereinafter), and the said finding has been confirmed by the Division Bench in an intra-Court appeal. Therefore, the issues with regard to the status of ‘workman’ as well as the allegation of forceful resignation are no longer integra, and the petition is required to be allowed by setting aside the impugned award.

6. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Mishra does not dispute the issue regarding the status of ‘workman’; however, he has submitted that, as the petition was filed and stay was granted by this Court, the petitioner is bound to pay wages under Section 17B of the I.D. Act. Learned advocate Mr. Mishra relies upon the affidavit of unemployment and submits that, in the absence of any satisfactory evidence produced by the petitioner, wages under Section 17B of the I.D. Act be granted from the date of filing of the petition till date. In view of the above submissions, learned advocate Mr. Mishra has requested that an appropriate order be passed with regard to the wages under Section 17B of the I.D. Act.

7. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties and on referring to the reasons recorded, it emerges that the issue with regard to the status of ‘workman’ as well as the allegation of forceful resignation has already been dealt with by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 4710 of 2023 and allied matters, wherein the following observations were made:

“10.1 Considering the above definition, for interpreting section 2(s) of the I.D.Act the nature of duty performed by the petitioner when he was in employment of the establishment is required to be narrated and after considering the nature of duties and work performed by him, it can be asserted that whether he is entitled to be called as workman. There is no dispute as per the proposition that the definition of workman given in section 2(s) of the I.D.Act is a inclusive and exclusive definition. The section refers to the term supervisory twice in sub-section however, at both the place, said term is used in different context. In the f