Mahesh Kumar Gupta vs Labour Court and Others

S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 Nagar Palika Parishad Sarsawan, District Saharanpur.

This writ petition is directed against award dated 22.8.1996 given by Presiding Officer labour Court U.P. Dehradun in adjudication case No. 37 of 1992. Learned Counsel for both the parties state that Nagar Palika Parishad, Sarsawan, Saharanpur Respondent No. 2 employer continues to be in U.P. and has not been included in the Uttaranchal State.

The matter which was referred to the labour Court was as to whether the action of employer Respondent No. 2 terminating the services of its workman. Petitioner on 15.10.1990 was just and valid or not. Annexure 10 to the writ petition is copy of resignation letter dated 27.7.1990 given by the Petitioner. In the said letter it has been mentioned that Petitioner out of frustration was willingly giving resignation and all his dues should be paid to him. Last sentence is that the resignation letter of the Petitioner shall be accepted after three months. Through letter dated 15.10.1990 an amount of Rs. 3490.60 was also sent through cheque. The main argument rather the sole argument of learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that in view of the language used in the resignation letter it could not be accepted within three months i.e. before 27.10.1990 and acceptance of resignation 10 days before rendered the termination illegal. In the opinion of the Court the only effect of the last sentence of the resignation letter was that before the expiry of three months Petitioner was at liberty to withdraw the resignation. However, the Petitioner admittedly never withdrew the resignation. Petitioner after receiving the relieving/ retrenchment/termination order on 16.10.1990 sent two letters to the Respondent No. 2 employer one was on 17.10.1990 and the other was on 26.10.1990 as mentioned in the award. It has also been mentioned in the award that in the letter dated 17.10.1990 Petitioner outrightly denied having sent any resignation but in the written statement filed before the labour Court he clearly admitted his resignation. Copies of the said letters have not been annexed. Neither learned Counsel for the Petitioner is in possession of Kachhi copies of the same.

Accordingly, the acceptance of resignation by Respondent No. 2 on 15.10.1990 became effective from 27.10.1990. Due amount sent by employer to the workman Petitioner was also accepted.

Accordingly, I do not find any error in the impugned award holding that Petitioner was not entitled to any relief and resignation was rightly accepted.

Writ petition is therefore dismissed.