K. Kannan, J. - (1.) A workman who was dismissed from service on purported voluntary resignation given by him raised a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, contending that the resignation was taken under coercion and that he should be allowed to continue. The matter had been taken up by the Labour Officer for conciliation and he sent a failure report on the basis of which the government declined the reference. Subsequently, it appears the State recalled its own proceedings and made a reference to the Labour Court for adjudging the labour dispute. This order of reference was challenged by means of the writ petition on the ground that the order had been passed by the State without affording any opportunity to the management to join issues of whether it was an industrial dispute that was fit for reference, particularly when it had been already declined. This court had admitted the writ petition and stayed the proceedings and the file predictably gathered dust, as it were, for 20 years and more. The management allowed itself the fancy of securing stay and kept the workman at bay, perhaps let him starve and would argue with exuberation now after two decades that reference ought not to have been made. Counsel would refer to decision made in M/s. Escorts Limited, Faridabad v. Industrial Tribunal, Haryana, Faridabad and others, : 1983 Lab. I.C. 223, wherein it was held that the exercise of powers second time without giving an opportunity to the management would be improper. I take the law as unexceptional but if we must make intervention in the writ jurisdiction, there must be some element of fairness and the case ought to involve such serious hardship that an intervention should be possible. The counsel also refers me to a decision in M/s. J.K. Cotton Spg. and Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others, : A.I.R. 1990 Supreme Court 1808 that states that termination of service that is brought about but the acceptance of resignation letter does not amount to retrenchment. That precisely is the issue in this case in a situation where the workman states that there had been no voluntary resignation and he had been literally forced to sign some papers that were used as voluntary retirement which must be taken as a retrenchment.
(2.) IN this case, I am of the view that a direction for industrial adjudication on whether resignation made by the workman was voluntary or not surely required a proper judicial approach for consideration by the labour court and if that has been foreclosed by an order declining a reference in the first place, but it was modified later, I will Hold that substantial justice was done and the case ought not be seen as one requiring appreciation on legal niceties, on whether a reference was necessary. All that the management was pleading for was a mere cosmetic exercise of a notice that should have given to it before a fresh reference was made. I fail to note as to how an issue regarding the resignation was voluntary or not is not an industrial dispute that would not merit a consideration for industrial adjudication. If there had been an error by the State in declining the reference first and it was getting rectified, in all fairness by application of laws cited before me, the management must have been served with notice. If it was not done, fair enough, the management secured itself an audience before a reference was made. If the court had issued notice to the management, all that the court could have done in the year 1990 was to put the matter before the State again for taking a decision after serving a notice on the management, and securing its objections. Beyond that there was nothing substantial for an objection by the management. The counsel pleads that he cannot be held responsible for the court's delay. I am prepared to own up the delay and the injustice that this resulted must be corrected. The injustice was that the workman who was pleading for an industrial adjudication was denied that adjudication by an order of stay for two decades and more. The injustice is manifest on the face of record and I cannot allow for legal gloss which the counsel wants to place in his arguments and by the weight of authorities which he wants to place to come in the way. AH the decisions and the precedents are for the cause of justice. The decisions, by their application if they brood injustice, the court cannot be left gasping for infusing the much needed whiff of air for a workman to breathe and that is what I propose to do. There is no need to feel scuttled by niceties but there is an imperative to break free from needless shackles which the management wants this court to be tied with. I make no breach of the legal precedents or what have been laid down, but I see this exceptional situation when the intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be made in favour of the management. I find this to be an outstanding example where an injustice was allowed to be perpetuated by the management securing an order of stay and pleadings helplessness that it cannot be held responsible for the court's delay. Somebody has to take the responsibility and this court is prepared to stick its neck out and own up to make reparation by a judicial intervention. The writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/ - to be paid to the workman and the adjudication shall be taken up by the Labour Court as expeditiously as possible.;