- (1.) Petitioner, Piara Singh, it is apparent, has been given rather a raw deal not only by respondent-Management of the Sakrali Co.Operative Agricultural Service Society but also by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala, dealing with this matter in reference made under Section 10(l)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The facts leading to his retrenchment in the garb of resignation and mereafter suffering order from the Labour Court, need a necessary mention.
(2.) Petitioner has spotless 16 years' service career as Secretary, employed with respondent No.2-Co.Operative Agricultural Service Society. He is said to have voluntarily resigned on June 2, 1990 which was accepted in meeting of the Managing Committee that was convened by the President of the Society on June 18,1990. On June 2,1990 itself the resignation said to have been tendered by petitioner voluntarily was withdrawn by addressing a letter on that behalf to the Deputy Registrar, Co.operative Societies, wherein it was specifically mentioned that the resignation had been fraudulently procured. Copies of the letter aforesaid endorsed to various authorities were placed on the records of Labour Court as Ex.W3 to W-8, and inasmuch the aforesaid copies were sent under postal certificate, receipts of the same are also available on the records of the Labour Court. It is the case of petitioner that on June 2 and 3, 1990 he went to Police Station to lodge a report but his requests for entertaining the complaint against those who had procured the resignation from him under threat to his life, were rejected. On June 4,1990 as well petitioner addressed a letter to the President of the Society withdrawing his resignation letter. Postal receipt of the letter aforesaid was also placed on the records of the Labour Court. The acknowledgement receipt, Ex.W9, which was signed by the Vice President of respondent-Society, was also placed on the records of Labour Court. On June 4,1990 vide Ex.W.12 petitio.ner also addressed a letter to the Registrar of Co.operative Societies that respondent No.2 had forcibly procured his resignation. This letter was endorsed to Sr. Supdt. of Police vide Ex.W14. When, however, his entreaties brought no tangible results and infact his demand of justice fell on deaf ears, he had no choice but for to serve demand notice resulting into reference made by the Government under Section 19(l)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act for adjudicating the dispute between him and respondent-Management. In his statement of claim petitioner averred that he had put in 16 years' service under respondent- Society as Secretary and was drawing Rs.1994/- per month by way of wages on June 18,1990 when his services were wrongfully terminated without any notice, charge-sheet, enquiry or compensation. It was also pleaded that the resignation was obtained from him under coercion on June 2,1990. In the reply that was filed by respondent- Management opposing the claim of petitioner, it was, inter-alia, pleaded that petitioner had submitted his resignation on June 2, 1990 which was accepted on June 18,1990. It was denied that resignation of workman was taken by force or that he had sent any communication regarding withdrawal of his resignation. It was also stated in the written statement that petitioner had never made any complaint to any authority regarding his resignation having been obtained under threat and his version was an after-thought. The Labour Court, on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: "1-Whefher the workman resigned from service, if so, to what effect? 2-If issue No.1 is not proved, whether the order of termination of service of the workman is justified and in order? 3-Relief."
(3.) After resultant trial the Labour Court returned a finding that workman had voluntarily tendered his resignation and he had failed to prove if he had sent any letter withdrawing the same. For arriving at the aforesaid conclusion, the Labour Court, in considered view of this Court, drew utterly wrong inferences, resulting into complete injustice. It has been said by the Labour Court that if services of workman were wrongfully terminated on June 18, 1990 which fact was known to petitioner, it is not understood as to why the demand notice was not served at once after June 18, 1990 and it was served on August 24,1990 i.e. two months and six days after his resignation was accepted. The period of two months and six days was not that big a gap from which such an inference could have been drawn. It has also been observed by the Labour Court that in the demand notice which was served to respondents-Society on August 24,1990 it was not mentioned any where that his resignation was obtained by force or that he lateron sent letters for withdrawal of the same and it was for the first time in the statement of claim filed by the workman that he mentioned that resignation was obtained by force on June 2,1990 which was withdrawn by him by sending letter dated June 4, 1990. It was also found by the Labour Court that there was no reference of any letter having been sent by the workman for withdrawal of his resignation. By so observing, the Labour Court completely ignored the fact that both demand notice and claim application, are on printed proforma. Admittedly, these proformas do not contain any clause with regard to termination of service by way of forced resignation. The demand notice was not prepared by a person well-versed with intricacies of law nor even by representative of petitioner who might be having some knowledge of pleadings. The only claim in the printed proforma is with regard to wrongful termination, without any notice, charge- sheet, enquiry etc. Insofar as claim application is concerned, the same, even though is on printed proforma, was filed by petitioner through his representative and despite the fact that there is no column of termination of service by way of forced resignation, it has been mentioned at the foot note of the prororma that the resignation of petitioner was obtained on June 2, 1990 by force regarding which he had, on the same very day as also on June 4, 1990, requested for withdrawal of his resignation to the higher authorities. It is totally incorrect that in the claim application it was not mentioned by petitioner that he had withdrawn his resignation as has been wrongly mentioned by the Labour Court. The Labour Court also completely lost sight of the fact that petitioner-workman had continuously worked for a period of 16 years and all that has been mentioned in his alleged resignation letter is that on account of domestic reasons he was wanting to resign. Infact, the Labour Court did not advert to the important aspect of the case that there was no compelling reason mentioned in the resignation and there was no compelling reason for petitioner to have resigned after continuous service of 16 years with no hope of alternative arrangement. The Labour Court once again wrongly relied upon register, Ex.M.-7, which is maintained by respondent-Management. This register is stated to pertain to entries of those who go out of office to do some miscellaneous job. The Labour Court, I cannot understand, as to under what circumstances came to the conclusion that inasmuch as in register, Ex.M-7, it was not mentioned that he was taken to Nanuke Rest House for some official work or otherwise and his resignation was obtained there by the President by force, it could be well said that absence of such an entry in the misc. register would show this case to be one of voluntary resignation. If the resignation was actually obtained by force, as is the case of petitioner no one would have permitted the petitioner to make such an entry in the register. Again, non-mentioning of petitioner that he as going to Patiala or any where else on June 4 or 11, 1990 when he sent letters under Postal Certificate or registered cover withdrawing his resignation, could not be taken relevant factor against him to hold that it was a case of voluntary resignation, could not be taken relevant factor against him to hold that it was a case of voluntary resignation. It is not disputed that the register was to obtain an entry if someone was going out of the office to do miscellaneous job and thus job necessarily meant a job for and on behalf of the Management. Petitioner's going out of office to post a letter was admittedly not a job of management and, therefore, there was no necessity whatsoever to make entry for that purpose. Further, there was no occasion for the petitioner, if he was under duress and threat of his life as is so categorically stated by him, to have mentioned in the register that he was going to the post office to send letters either under postal certificate or registered cover so as to withdraw his resignation. Once again, the Labour Court came to utterly wrong conclusion to hold that the letters either under postal certificate or registered cover were engineered by workman and some known sources of postal authorities at Patiala. The aforesaid conclusion has been drawn from the fact that letters were sent through U.P.C. but nothing of the sort was mentioned in the letters that they were being sent under postal certificate. Once the receipt of U.P.C. was available, the mere fact that in the letter which was addressed to the authorities concerned, it was not mentioned that it was being sent under postal certificate, was wholly meaningless. Again, the inference drawn by the Labour Court that since in the register it was not mentioned that petitioner was going to Patiala to post the letters aforesaid, is wholly uncalled for. The letters have been produced on the records. A.D. receipts and postal certificates have also been produced on records, and even if permission was required to be taken, for which, however, there was no evidence, it could not be concluded that simply because he did not mention in the register that he was going to Patiala, he did not go there at all. That apart, it was not necessary for the petitioner to have sent the letters himself. He could have done it through some of his friend or relation and this was not necessary' aspect of the case to be pleaded or proved. The real thing was as to whether the letters of withdrawing resignation were written or not. Again, the mere fact that nothing was mentioned with regard to petitioner going out of the office, would not show that he remained in the office for whole of the day as is the finding recorded by the Labour Court. There may be post office at village Sakrali itself but in the facts and circumstances of this case it was not necessary for tie petitioner to have posted the letters from Sakrali only. On the contrary, the totality of circumstances shows that he would have rather avoided posting of letters from Sakrali as this could be noticed and, as mentioned above, he was under threat of his life and, therefore, it could well be his intention to avoid it being noticed. Once again, the Labour Court has drawn completely wrong conclusion from the stamps which are of Patiala and not of village Sudewa. Obviously, the A.D. and other receipts would be stamped at the place which was mentioned in the receipts and if the petitioner wanted the AD receipts to come back at Patiala address, there was nothing wrong in it.;