Hon’ble Devendra Pratap Singh, J.—Heard Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri N.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent workman, learned Standing counsel for the State and perused the record.

2. This petition is directed against the labour Court award dated 2.6.2011 as published on 7.12.2011 (Annexure 1 to the petition).

3. The respondent workman caused a reference of an industrial dispute under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) to the Labour Court, Ghaziabad with regard to his alleged termination. The Labour Court registered it as Adjudication Case No. 455 of 1997 and the reference was (as loosely translated in English) to the following effect :

“Whether the determination of the services of the workman w.e.f. 2.5.1990 by the employer was proper and legal ? If not, then to what relief the workman is entitled ?”

4. Upon notice, both the parties filed their respective pleadings and adduced their evidence. The Labour Court by the impugned award held that the termination of the services of the workman was in violation of the provisions of the Act and as such it was neither proper nor legal and therefore, the workman was entitled for reinstatement together with 50% back wages.

5. The case set up by the workman was that he was working as a confirmed employee in the operative category since Ist of October 1988. It was further pleaded that while he was working in the Establishment of the petitioner on 2nd of May 1990, certain anti social elements entered the factory premises and dragged him out without any resistance from the guards and confined him to an unknown place, where after severely beating him, got a forced resignation letter written by him. The further case was that as he was mentally disturbed after the incident, he took no immediate action and thereafter got himself medically examined on 3rd of May 1990 and sent a letter alongwith the medical certificate disclosing the entire incident to the employer on 5th of May 1990 seeking a month’s medical leave w.e.f. 3rd of May 1990. This letter was followed by other letters seeking extension of the medical leave vide letter dated 2.6.1990, 5.10.1990, 6.12.1990 etc. All these letters were sent under certificate of posting. Upon recovery, he approached the factory premises for reporting on duty on 18.4.1991 together with a fitness certificate dated 17.4.1991, but was not allowed to enter the premises. Thereafter on 19th of April 1991, he sent a demand letter to the management through registered post, in vain, whereupon he approached the Labour Authorities and after a failure report, the reference was made.

6. The case set up by the petitioner was to the effect that the workman had tendered his voluntary resignation on 2.5.1990 and the same was accepted and he was relieved and thereafter he was paid the wages and his dues which he received. It was further pleaded that no such incident took place within the factory premises, the story of forced resignation was false and none of the letters dated 5.5.1990, 2.6.1990, 5.10.1990, 6.12.1990 etc., which were sent under postal certificate, was ever received and for the first time after about a year, a registered letter dated 19th of April 1991 was received disclosing the concocted story.

7. The Labour Court held that the workman had withdrawn his prospective resignation vide letter dated 5.5.1990 before the stipulated time and since he was not paid the dues and compensation under Section 6N of the Act, his disengagement was bad and, therefore, after finding that the workman was engaged in his own agricultural operations, granted reinstatement with 50% back wages.

8. It is urged that the workman kept silent for about a year and only thereafter he came up with a concocted story of forged resignation and of sending withdrawal letter dated 5.5.1990 under postal certificate and medical certificate. It is further urged that though there was complete denial