IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the determination of 'workman' status and the voluntary nature of resignation are critical in industrial disputes, requiring careful examination of evidence.

ORDER :

(Surepalli Nanda, J.) :

Heard learned Senior Designate Counsel Sri Challa Gunaranjan, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Labour, appearing for respondent Nos.1 & 3 and Sri T.P.Acharya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2.

2. The petitioner approached the court seeking prayer as under:

“... pleased to:

(1) call for the records culminating in the Impugned Award dated 20/01/2007 passed in I.D. No. 116 of 2003 by the Learned 1st Respondent viz., the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hyderabad, as published by the Respondent No.3 on 19/06/2007 vide G.O. Rt. No.982 dated 26/04/2007;

(ii) and quash the same by issuance of a Writ, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, while declaring it as totally arbitrary, nonest and without jurisdiction; and

(iii) pass such further order or orders...”

3. PERUSED THE RECORD :

A) Counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No.2, in particular paragraph Nos. 12, 13 and 14, read as under:

12. The statements made in para 10 are totally false and misleading. In this regard I submit that after receipt of the legal notice dated: 16-7-2003 issued by me on 19-7-2003, the petitioner had in a hurry accepted the resignation and prepared a letter dated: 21-7-2003 and sent to my residence address through courrier though I was very much in the office just to make the false claim which is being put up now. If the acceptance was on 10-7-2003 and the same was shown to me on 12-7-2003 and I had refused to receive the same, the same would have been incorporated in the said letter of 21-7-2003. But in a hurry they have dispatched the said letter on 22-7-2003 through courrier after receipt of my notice dated: 16-7-2003 on 19-7-2003 and therefore the statement that the letter dated: 21-7-2003 was dispatched in the early hours of morning on Monday, 21-7-2003 is totally false and misleading.

13. In reply to paras 11 to 14, I submit that I issued a legal notice dated: 16-7-2003 to the petitioner and also to others including Mr. Milan Wahi by name and the same was received on 19-7-2003 by them. In the said legal notice, I had categorically mentioned that the resignation was obtained by force and thus demanded them not to act upon it and return the same to me. Without referring to it, a letter dated: 21-7-2003 was issued. For the legal notice issued by me reply dated: 24-7-2003 was given. In the said reply the petitioner had categorically stated that the resignation was accepted in terms of letter dated: 21.7.2003 and there is no reference of 10-7-2003 and also 12.7.2003 incidents. This makes it very clear that after receipt of my legal notice dated: 16.7.2003, the petitioner had sent reply dated: 24.7.2003 and prevented me from entering into the office from 24.7.2003. This action of the petitioner is nothing but termination of my services.

14. I submit that according to petitioner's letter dated: 21-7-2003 and the counter in I.D. there were certain financial irregularities on my part and when I had categorically stated in my legal notice dated: 16.7.2003 that the resignation was obtained by force and demanded them not to act upon it, issuing the letter dated: 21.7.2003 amounts to terminating my services without conducting an enquiry into the alleged irregularities and without giving me an opportunity in that regard. Hence, the Hon'ble Labour Court rightly allowed my I.D.

4. The case of the petitioner in brief as per the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present writ petition, is as under:

a) The petitioner is a registered company and is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of cigarettes. The 2nd respondent herein was one of the employees employed as a member of Sales Administrative Staff – Grade-II in the petitioner company.

b) Subsequently, the Petitioner came to know about certain irregularities pertaining to the 2nd respondent’s work an