The court confirmed that the resignation was obtained under coercion, affirming the limits of certiorari review focusing on jurisdictional errors.

ORDER:

The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking following relief:

“to issue an order direction or writ particularly one in the nature of writ of CERTIORARI after calling for the records quash the order passed in A.P.S.A. No.2 OF 2002, Dated 30.04.2002 on the file of the Appellate Authority under A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Eluru, including the orders of the First Appellate Authority and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Circle II, Guntur in A.P.S.E. No.1 of 2000, dated 4.4.2001 and grant no relief to the first respondent and pass such further order or orders in the interest of justice.”

2. (a) The 1^st respondent was appointed as Medical Representative in the writ petitioner company on 20.05.1985 and got posted at Srikakulam. Later, he got transferred to Tenali and from there, he was again transferred to Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. It is stated that 1^st respondent tendered resignation on 30.01.1996 and the same has been communicated to National Sales Manager, who was competent officer with a request to relieve him immediately besides settling the ex-gratia amount. The said resignation was stated to have been accepted immediately and the same was accordingly communicated to 1^st respondent by letter dated 31.01.1996 and therefore, he got relieved from the services of 1^st petitioner Company with immediate effect on 31.01.1996.

(b) Nearly about 12 days thereafter 1^st respondent sent fax letter dated 12.02.1996 addressed to Vice President, Marketing, of the petitioner company requesting cancellation of his resignation and to reinstate him into service. Petitioner stated to have replied by letter dated 16.02.1996 through its Manager, Human Resources, inter alia stating that inasmuch as resignation has already been accepted and ex-gratia paid, his request for cancellation of resignation, merely being an afterthought, was not acceptable and accordingly stood rejected.

(c) Thereafter, 1^st respondent stated to have taken up the matter with Assistant Commissioner of Labour making certain false allegations against the company that he was made to resign on account of force and coercion and therefore, escalated the issue. Though the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Circle – II, Guntur, held conciliation meetings, eventually suggested 1^st respondent by letter dated 08.08.1996 to approach the competent Labour Court for redressal of his grievance. Nearly after lapse of seven months, petitioner stated to have received notice from 3^rd respondent to respond to the application that was preferred by 1^st respondent under the provisions of A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 , which also accompanied an application seeking to condone the delay in preferring such an application. After contest, the application seeking for condonation of delay came to be dismissed by order dated 29.01.1998.

(d) As against the same, 1^st respondent preferred appeal before Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Eluru, who in turn remanded the matter back to the 3^rd respondent for fresh consideration and to pass appropriate orders after recording the necessary evidence. The 3^rd respondent by order dated 04.10.2001 ultimately passed final orders deciding all issues in favour of 1^st respondent and he was directed to be reinstated into service with back wages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits.

(e) Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred second appeal vide A.P.S.A.No.2 of 2002 before the 2^nd respondent which eventually came to be dismissed by order dated 30.04.2002 confirming the order of 2^nd respondent. Aggrieved by the orders in first appeal as confirmed by second appe