NARENDRA NATH TIWARI, J. - (1.) The petitioner was a doctor employed in Tata Main Hospital and served as such for about 14 years. The petitioner complained that the Management forced him to write resignation order on 3rd July, 1995. The petitioner reported the matter to the Deputy Labour Commissioner by his representation dated 4th July, 1995. He also made a complaint under Section 26(2) of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and prayed for setting aside the said order, which is said to be termination order, but in the garb of resignation. He also claimed full back wages and other financial benefits with interest and cost.
(2.) THE Presiding Officer, Labour Court. Jamshedpur heard the parties. The evidences were led on behalf of both the parties. By order dated 20th June, 2007, learned Presiding Officer dismissed the petitioner's complaint, holding, inter alia, that the complainant/petitioner could not be able to establish that the petitioner was illegally forced to resign and acceptance of petitioner's resignation was in the garb of termination from service in violation of the legal provision and the same is illegal and liable to be quashed. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that learned Presiding Officer did not consider the points in objection raised by the petitioner before the Deputy Labour Commissioner dated 4th July. 1995. The petitioner had not tendered resignation. The resignation letter was obtained by force. The same was in garb of force and illegal termination. Learned Counsel submitted that the said letter was produced in evidence and is marked as Ext. 1 on his behalf. Learned Presiding Officer, however, has discussed all other evidences except Ext. 1, which is the crucial documentary evidence and the basis of the claim of the petitioner.
(3.) ON behalf of the respondent -Company, it has been contended, inter alia, that an employee of the Company is expected to be loyal and devoted. The petitioner, on the contrary, has concocted a false allegation that he was coerced to resign. The respondents have denied the allegation of threat and coercion or compelling the petitioner to resign or anything done in violation of standing order. Learned Counsel submitted that the finding of learned Labour Court is legal and sound and based on evidence and material on record. He further submitted that the said letter addressed to the Deputy Labour Commissioner (Ext. 1) has no relevance in the context of the matter.;