- (1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated July 27, 1989 passed bay the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh under Section 33c (2) of ihe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called 'the Act') whereby the claim of the workman for wages for a period April 1, 1979 to November 14, 1984 was partly allowed with a further direction to the Management to allow the workman to join duty within a period of 30 days from the date of the order.
(2.) PETITIONER joined the Lakshmi Commercial Bank Limited on February 28, 1976 as clerk cum-cashier and he continued working till the year 1979. He applied for leave for one month in January, 1979 which was thereafter extended/sanctioned upto February 28, 1979. On March 2, 1979 he sent his resignation to be effective after one month and did not resume work thereafter and wanted the Management to treat the in-between period as one month notice. On March 20, 1979 he is alleged to have withdrawn the resignation and simultaneously requested the Management to permit him to resume duty and since he was not allowed to join, he filed an application before the Labour Court on November 14, 1984 claiming arrears of salary for the period April 1979 till the date of filing of application. In June 1985 the Lakshmi Commercial Bank Limited merged with the Canara Bank and this is how the Canara Bank came to be im-pleaded before the Labour Court.
(3.) ON notice issued to the petitioner-Bank it filed a detailed reply before the Labour Court. It was admitted that the petitioner worked as a clerk -cum-cashier till February 28, 1979 and that he submitted his resignation on his own accord and did not resume duty till April, 1979 and thereafter. The case of the Management is that since the workman had acted on his resignation, the same became effective on April 1, 1979 and thereafter relationship of master and servant between the parties stood determined. As regards letter dated March 20, 1979 withdrawing the resignation, the same was denied and it was alleged that the said letter had been concocted for the purposes of the said application. It was specifically alleged by the Management that it had not received a copy of the so-called communication and the relationship having come to an end the application under Section 33c (2) of the Act was not maintainable and that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate. It was also contended by the Management that the workman filed the application after a delay of more then 5-1/2 years.;