IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Ekmedziiusthe I6m<kg/0fNDvenfixn'2OTGE0GEA BEFORE THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE V_: E' W.P.No.35371/2€3«1O::'(L::3i'E'RTA I BETWEEN : M SARAVANAN, s/o C MARIYAPPAN, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, _ R/A c/OSDAYALAN," OPP: SABUDDIN PROVISION ST-:_3R'I:s,' SRINIVASA NAa;A_RA,g' _ - DEVARA " ARABIC DeI;I,EGE;'.pQS5,3- I » BANGAIE-RE;5(s0 045, I '*-:;._ . " . ' ' PETITIONER [By M C J E AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, 1' «BEL LIMITED, NO.64, DYNAMIC HOUSE. CHURCH STREET, 0 I3AI\IG;eII;0,RE}':3I30 001. ... RESPONDENT
THIS W.P. FILED PRAYING TO QUASH THE
Isx/IEUGNED AWARD PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL
LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE IN REF. NO.101/2003
“DATED 10.9.2008 VIDE ANNEXUI-‘{E–A TO THIS WRIT
PETIITON .
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR pRELIMI.I§I’ARY
HEARING THIS BAY, THE COURT
F OLLOVVIN G:
This writ petition is direetedi-.agairist_Athe
of the Labour Court by the by it 0
the petitioner was rejeeted.;””‘ * it
2. The facts o0f.e.thé;–case {ail within the
narrow comp’ass- are that’ t11e”‘j;i€~titiofner was working
as Iner”som%;e1 in the respondent
Comoany. from 6.3.2000 and was
co1jafi_rmed”iri’ serviee 1.4.2001. Thereafter. it is the
of the petitioner that he was removed from the
” 1.4.2002 by taking his letter of
_ ihdustrial dispute by going before the
re.sigrIvatiofI’1A0by force. The petitioner then raised the
‘ 0.w.4LI.~1,.n>
Q . 1 .
0′ Officer and uitimately the matter was referred by the
~7:Government to the Labour Court for adjudication
under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The
By
I I
Labour Court dismissed the claim of the petitioner by
holding that, as the petitioner had resigned
services, the question of the employer terra’.ina.ting” H
services does not arise.
8. Having heardgthe petitioner’s”icoiinself. in
regard to the grounds ‘petition and
after going through “VCourt, it
is noticed that thevgfrom the job
with effect: Vlitiiereafter he also
receiygedv by his employer in
the Rs’. 19,803/~ and the cheque
was happily accepting the
aforesaid amount, the petitioner contended before the
» itlonsiideraition Officer that he was forcibly removed
H ‘–tr.orn–se?-mice by asking him to give the letter of
resignation.
4. Learned Presiding Officer of the Labour
___§C0urt, after going through the material placed before
him, found that not only the petitioner resigned from
3/
the services on his own free volition, but he also
accepted the amount which was sent to him by way
of cheque and if at ali the resignation was
by force, nothing prevented the .
raising the issue in this regard_betv_vfeerr “1 ” ”
3.6.2002. Having kept quiet;”:.’f0r_A
months after tendering._:’1jesigna,tionVVafter ” V
accepting the amount of –,i the..p.etitioner
could not have ‘in the day to
contend that.jhe._wa.:s from his job.
The Labour CVourti’1:{a_.s the course of
its order thatithere placed to show
that the resignation V-was”‘obt’ajned by the employer by
force.'” _
5.’g “-In the-aforesaid circumstances, the order
_ _:7c.f.t’h’eV Labour does not call for any interference.
3 pfetition lacks merit and it is dismissed.
Dyr:
Sd/-3
Iudgfif