JUDGMENT Petitioner here who is employer challenges the decisions of Labour Court and Industrial Court vide Annexure P/13 and P/14 whereby respondents' contention for having not resigned voluntarily has been accepted and the petitioner here has been directed to pay the retrenchment compensation. Brief history of the case is that respondent No. 1 filed application before the Labour Court with the assertions that he has resigned on a false assurance of retrenchment compensation but he has been paid only the amount of gratuity and not retrenchment compensation. As against it, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that worker (respondent No. 1) has voluntarily resigned. The same was accepted and the amount of gratuity was paid to him. The two courts i.e. Labour Court and the Industrial Court found that the resignation of the worker i.e. respondent No. 1 was not voluntary and, therefore, he was directed payment of back-wages till date of superannuation. Labour Court initially granted 25% back-wages but the Industrial Court granted full back-wages. Hence this petition. Contention of learned Counsel for petitioner is that once the document (Ex. D/6) has been admitted by respondent No. I which shows the fact of resignation, the burden lies on respondent No. 1 to show that the same was not voluntary. Respondent No. 1 has failed to adduce any evidence to substantiate his contention that one Shri Sharma who is unknown and whose designation has also not been established gave false assurance that he shall be given either employment or retrenchment compensation. Thus, the finding of the two Courts below are perverse, especially, in view of the statement of Janardanrao Salvi before whom the resignation was tendered. As against it, learned counsel for respondents has submitted that since the finding of fact is concurrent this Court should not interfere in the finding of fact in exercise of jurisdiction u/s 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The second contention of learned counsel for respondents is that admission made by Farzandali (witness of petitioner here) goes to show that the resignation was not voluntary and since there is a basis for finding it would not be proper to reverse the same. I have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the statements filed alongwith the petition. There is no dispute that document Ex. P/6 was tendered by respondent No. 1 in the office of the petitioner. I have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the statements filed alongwith the petition. There is no dispute that document Ex. P/6 was tendered by respondent No. 1 in the office of the petitioner. Shri Janardan Salvi has stated that letter of resignation (Ex. D/6) was presented before him. He has further stated that the worker (respondent No. 1) wanted only gratuity to be paid. Respondent No. 1 has adduced no other evidence excepting tendering his own bald statement. In the statement (para 4) initially he has stated that one Shri Sharma, Labour Officer promised that he will be given either the employment or the retrenchment allowance. When asked about the identity of Shri Sharma during cross-examination in para 4 he says that he does not know what is his full name and whether he is working in the Mill or not. It is surprising that how a worker has believed the promise made by a person who is not known and whose designation is also not certain. It is an established principle of law that burden lies on the person who wants the document to be read otherwise then it purports to be. Document Ex. D/6 is unconditional. There is absolutely no mention that as promised or assured by any officer, he tendered his resignation. The burden was on respondent No. 1 to show that he has signed the document involuntarily. Learned two Courts below have placed the burden of proof wrongly on the petitioner and therefore, the finding of two Courts below have become perverse. Though it is also true that normally this court does not interfere in the finding of fact in exercise of powers under Art. 226/227 of the Constitution but where the burden has wrongly been placed and the finding has been arrived at without there being any evidence on it the finding becomes perverse and in that eventuality it will be deemed that order passed by two Courts below who have based decision on perverse finding have acted without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has drawn attention of this Court to certain admissions made by one Farzandali examined by the employer (petitioner here). This witness has admitted that respondent No. 1 worker was not ailing and on a query he stated that unless he writes the fact of ailment the company would not pay the money. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has drawn attention of this Court to certain admissions made by one Farzandali examined by the employer (petitioner here). This witness has admitted that respondent No. 1 worker was not ailing and on a query he stated that unless he writes the fact of ailment the company would not pay the money. It appears respondent No. 1 (worker) was interested in getting the amount of gratuity at the earliest. He, therefore, tendered resignation. Though this case is based on the resignation (Ex. D/6) but the documents (Ex. D/1 to D/5) have also been admitted by respondent No. 1 worker. In all those documents he has many times tried to resign and thereafter withdrew it. This goes to show that the worker was in the habit of tendering resignations which were not accepted on earlier occasions. But once the document (Ex. D/6) has been acted upon and the worker has accepted the payment of gratuity voluntarily, it is impossible to believe that he resigned involuntarily. It is also noteworthy that he kept mum for about six months after receiving the payment of amount of gratuity. This further goes to show that the retirement was voluntary. In the opinion of this Court, therefore, the finding of the two Courts below is perverse, and is not based on cogent evidence and it is further based on placing the burden wrongly on the employer. As a result, petition succeeds. Judgments of two Courts below (Labour Court and Industrial Court) are set-aside. It is held that respondent No. 1 worker has resigned voluntarily and has been paid the amount of gratuity thereafter. There shall however be no order as to cost.