Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/6447/1994 4/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6447 of 1994
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
=========================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================
FATESINH
MOHANSINH MAKWANA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
M/S
JYOTI SWITCH GEARS LTD - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
PC MASTER for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 03/09/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. By
way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and
order quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and award
dated 2.12.1993 passed by Labour Court, Ahmedabad passed in Reference
(LCA) No. 55 of 1992, by which the Labour Court has dismissed the
said Reference.
2.0 The
facts leading to the present Special Civil Application in nutshell
are as under:
2.1. The
petitioner was serving with the respondent and it appears that on
21.8.1983 he was caught red handed with one choke, which was found in
his Tiffin and therefore, it was alleged against the petitioner that
he has committed a theft of the company property. It appears that the
company was to initiate criminal proceedings against him, however the
petitioner requested not to take any action and not to initiate any
proceedings and he tendered resignation, which came to be accepted on
24.8.1983. It appears that thereafter, as a second thought and after
his resignation was accepted, petitioner by communication dated
21.8.1983 turn around and submitted that his resignation was by
force, compulsion and under duress. Therefore, it was requested to
take him back on duty. That thereafter, petitioner raised an
industrial dispute which was referred to Labour Court, Ahmedabad,
which was numbered as Reference(LCA) No. 55 of 1992 and Labour Court
by impugned judgment and award dismissed the said Reference by
holding that once the resignation tendered by the petitioner was
accepted, it was not open for the petitioner to withdraw the same.
The Labour Court also found that the resignation tendered by the
petitioner was not under duress. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied
with the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court,
Ahmedabad in dismissing the said Reference, the petitioner has
preferred present Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
3. Shri
PC Master, learned advocate for the petitioner has vehemently
submitted that as such the so called resignation of the petitioner
was under duress. It is submitted that as such there was no theft
committed by the petitioner at all and, therefore, any admission or
confession made by the petitioner cannot be used as evidence against
the petitioner without holding any inquiry and straightway order of
termination could not have been passed and, therefore, it is
requested to allow the present Special Civil Application.
4. Having
heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and considering the
impugned judgment and award, at the outset, it is required to be
noted that it is not a question of termination of the petitioner on
confession and/ or admission. It is a question of resignation
tendered by the petitioner. It appears that to avoid criminal
proceedings and other departmental proceedings, the petitioner
voluntarily tendered the resignation on 21.8.1983, which came to be
accepted immediate on the very day. Thereafter, after a period of
three days as an afterthought the petitioner submitted the
application on 24.8.1983 and came out with a case that his alleged
resignation was under duress and he tried to withdraw the same and
retract the same. Considering the fact that earlier, the resignation
submitted by the petitioner was already accepted and as rightly
observed by the Labour Court that it was not open for the petitioner
subsequently to withdraw the same.
5. Now
so far as the contention on behalf of the petitioner that he has not
committed theft is concerned, even in the cross-examination the
petitioner has categorically stated that one choke was found from his
Tiffin. Learned advocate for the petitioner is not in a position to
satisfy the Court how the choke was found from the Tiffin. Therefore,
it appears that to avoid any criminal proceedings, the petitioner
voluntarily submitted the resignation, which came to be accepted on
24.8.1983 and as an afterthought subsequently he tried to retract the
same, which is not permitted by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad.
6. In
view of the above there is no substance in the petition, which
deserve to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule
discharged.
(M.R.SHAH,
J.)
kaushik
Top