JUDGMENT - KOCHAR R.J., J.:---The petitioner company is aggrieved by the Award of the Labour Court passed on 7-9-1995 in Reference (IDA) No. 493 of 1992 holding that the resignation tendered by the workman was under force and coercion and that the company had followed some unfair labour practice against him. The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court directed the petitioner company to reinstate the workman with continuity of service w.e.f. 27-9-1991 without backwages. 2.The respondent workman was in the employment of the petitioner company from 31-10-1966. Since then, he also appears to have been promoted in the service from the post of Mazdoor to the post of Auto Mechanic. According to the workman his past service record was clean. It was the case of the workman that on 27-9-1991 the company had obtained resignation from him forcibly and under coercion. According to him, he did not resign voluntarily from the employment of the company. The respondent-workman therefore raised an industrial dispute demanding reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service. The State Government referred the Industrial Dispute under section 10(1) read with section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Labour Court for adjudication. Both the parties completed their pleadings. According to the petitioner-company, the respondent workman had tendered his resignation voluntarily without any force or coercion, as alleged to avoid any police action against him in view of the incident occurred on 26-9-1991. According to the company, on that day the respondent workman had committed theft of two copper hammer heads weighing 1.64 kgs. and he was caught red-handed trying to take away the said property of the company unlawfully. According to the company, the respondent-workman had confessed the said incident in writing and had given his resignation voluntarily. The petitioner company opposed grant of any relief to the respondent workman in the aforesaid circumstances. The respondent workman examined himself while the petitioner company examined five witnesses. The petitioner company also relied on the following documents : 1. Resignation letter of Shri V.D. Mehta 2. Confession statement of Shri V.D. Mehta 3. Statement of Shri B.V. Sawant, Watchman 4. Statement of Mr. S.P. Petwal, Havildar, 5. Statement of Shri Abdul Aziz Ansari. 6. The respondent workman examined himself while the petitioner company examined five witnesses. The petitioner company also relied on the following documents : 1. Resignation letter of Shri V.D. Mehta 2. Confession statement of Shri V.D. Mehta 3. Statement of Shri B.V. Sawant, Watchman 4. Statement of Mr. S.P. Petwal, Havildar, 5. Statement of Shri Abdul Aziz Ansari. 6. Statement of Shri Baliram Pandurang Patil The petitioner company proved the aforesaid documents before the Labour Court by examining the authors of the said documents and also the fact of the workman giving the first two letters voluntarily. 3.The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court framed the issues on the basis of the pleadings and answered the same against the petitioner company by holding that the workman had proved that under the fear to face the police action for the alleged theft of copper hammer worth Rs. 150/- Rs. 200/- he had submitted his resignation and that it was not under his freewill and without pressure. The Labour Court, however, held that the workman had failed to prove any mala fide intention of the petitioner company. The Labour Court held that the workman had proved unfair labour practice on the part of the company and therefore, he was entitled to the relief of reinstatement without backwages. While answering the said issues the Labour Court has considered the entire evidence on record. The Labour Court has granted the relief of reinstatement mainly on the ground that he had clean past record and he had put in long service. It further appears that the value of the property to the tune of Rs. 150/- to Rs. 200/- had also weighed with the learned Judge. While granting reinstatement he has undermined the incident of theft by calling it a "minor guilt" while denying full backwages he has described the said incident as "serious" which did not warrant premium of backwages to be granted to the workman. The leaned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has observed that the company should accept the workman by showing mercy as he was punished by way of denying full backwages. 6.According to Shri C.U. Singh, the learned Counsel for the petitioner company, the findings recorded by the Labour Court are wholly perverse and warrants interference by this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 6.According to Shri C.U. Singh, the learned Counsel for the petitioner company, the findings recorded by the Labour Court are wholly perverse and warrants interference by this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned Counsel has taken me through the entire evidence and the reasoning given by the Labour Court. According to him to avoid disciplinary action and also consequent police action the respondent workman had tendered his resignation on his own and that there was no force or coercion exercised on him. Shri Singh further submitted that it was not the case of dismissal wherein section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act would come into operation to enable the Labour Court to have held that the resignation was a forced resignation and therefore, grant of reinstatement without backwages was the relief granted by the Labour Court. The question before the Labour Court was simple whether the respondent workman had voluntarily resigned or whether there were circumstances to indicate that the resignation was obtained by force or coercion. The fact that the workman was told that the company would lodge a police complaint against the workman for committing theft could not be termed as force or coercion. The learned Counsel further submitted that the workman had recorded his confessional statement in his own hand writing and had even given his resignation in his own hand writing. The confessional statement was recorded on the spot and on the very same day he had tendered his resignation which was accepted by the company on the next day. The acceptance of the resignation was communicated to the respondent workman which he received on the next day. Shri Singh further pointed out from the trend and tenor of the judgment which was contrary to the record indicating total non-application of mind and conflicting conclusions. Shri Singh has relied on the following two judgments : (J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others)1, 1990(4) Supreme Court Cases 27. (Banda Navbharat Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and others v. Raghunath Ganesh Manorikar and others)2, 1992(II) C.L.R. 956(Bom.). 5.As against the aforesaid contentions on behalf of the petitioners, Shri Karande, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-workman, vehemently submitted that the Award which is based on facts finding should not be interfered with under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 5.As against the aforesaid contentions on behalf of the petitioners, Shri Karande, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-workman, vehemently submitted that the Award which is based on facts finding should not be interfered with under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. He also submitted that the Award is in conformity with the evidence and material on record. Shri Karande further submitted that the workman had put in service of 12 years with clean record and the incident was of a minor nature involving the alleged theft of the material worth Rs. 150/- to Rs. 200/-. Shri Karande further submitted that the Security Officer being a retired Assistant Police Commissioner had good influence with the local Police Station and therefore, when the workman had gone to lodge an NC against the forcible resignation his complaint was not taken. Shri Karande further submitted that from the statement of claim it was clear that the workman was assaulted by confining him into a Cabin by Shri Ghogale, Security Officer, who showered on him abuses and forced him to sign the resignation letter. Shri Karande further submitted that the workman who had a clean record of service of 12 years could not tender his resignation and leave the job easily or lightly. According to him, the petitioner company ought to have held a domestic enquiry in the charge of theft levelled against the workman and in that case he would have had a opportunity of defending himself. Shri Karande submitted that this opportunity was denied to him and that by use of force and coercion the workman was made to resign from the employment. Shri Karande concluded that the Award is just and proper as the workman is only reinstated in service and no backwages were awarded by the learned Presiding Officer. 6.It is not possible for me to accept the theory and version of the workman that he was forced and coerced to resign from the employment of the petitioner company. It is on record that at the relevant time his cousin brother Shri Arun Mehta was the Labour Minister and that he had tried to intervene in the matter for amicable solution. It is on record that at the relevant time his cousin brother Shri Arun Mehta was the Labour Minister and that he had tried to intervene in the matter for amicable solution. The fact that his cousin brother was in the seat of power in Mantralaya was known to the workman and he would not have yielded or surrendered to the force or coercion used by the Security Officer who was the retired Assistant Police Commissioner. It is also not possible for me to believe that the Police Station did not record the complaint of the workman against the company for obtaining resignation forcibly. It is also not possible for me to accept the submission of Shri Karande that the petitioner company ought to have held disciplinary proceedings by issuing a charge-sheet and by holding a domestic enquiry in the charge of theft levelled against the workman so that he would have had full opportunity of defending himself. It is not that when an employee or a servant or a workman tenders his resignation the employer cannot accept the resignation as a practical way out to get rid of a delinquent workman in the facts and circumstances of each case. It is not that in every case the employer must punish a delinquent workman. The purpose of the employer is to get rid of a delinquent workman and such a purpose is always served when a servant or an employee or a workman offers to resign and go away peacefully. By accepting such resignation the employer also saves much time and money to be spent over the disciplinary proceedings by appointing an Inquiry Officer and thereafter by defending his case before the courts, often even upto to the Supreme Court. It is well known that the litigation involves huge expenditure and if the simple resignation of the delinquent workman serves the purpose the employer is not legally duty bound to persist to hold a disciplinary proceedings and to invite the costly ordeal of litigation. Besides, if finally the employer fails in the matter on any ticklish law point that might crop up he has to pay a very heavy cost of full backwages in addition to the expenses for the litigation. The resignation is a very easy way out in terms of money and a face saving solution for the delinquent workman also. Besides, if finally the employer fails in the matter on any ticklish law point that might crop up he has to pay a very heavy cost of full backwages in addition to the expenses for the litigation. The resignation is a very easy way out in terms of money and a face saving solution for the delinquent workman also. He also stands benefited financially to get his legal dues on resignation such as gratuity which can be forfeited in the case of dismissal for theft. It is always upto the employer to accept the resignation and get rid of the delinquent unwanted workman by accepting his resignation. It is also a face saving for the delinquent workman to avoid social stigma of dismissal if finally he gets dismissed. Very often the charges such as theft or misappropriation of money are of serious nature and when the family and relatives of the delinquent workman come to know about the dismissal of the workman a serious stigma is cast on him and his family also in the society. If the employer tells the delinquent workman that if he does not resign he will have to take steps in accordance with law it cannot be suggested by any stretch of imagination or logic that the employer was using force or coercion. He was only suggesting a way out to save the delinquent workman from the ordeal of disciplinary proceedings and also from the social stigma which would be cast on him if he were found guilty and if he were to be dismissed for the same. Such a bargain cannot be said to be a use of force or coercion. In the present case also samething appear to have happened. The workman was caught red-handed while taking away the companys property in his hand in wrapped paper. The value of the property is irrelevant. At that time he gave a confessional statement, which reads as under: "Name : Vijay Damodar Mehta, Address: Laxmi Sankar Niwas, Room No. 4, Barrister Nath Pai Road, Konkan Nagar, Bhandup (W), Bombay 400078. I Vijay Damodar Mehta 1032 ASB working for the last 24 years, Last night 26-9-1991 when I was going out after completing my O.T. the watchman found 2 copper hammer wrapped in a paper in my hand. I feel very sorry for the same and hence I tender my apology. I Vijay Damodar Mehta 1032 ASB working for the last 24 years, Last night 26-9-1991 when I was going out after completing my O.T. the watchman found 2 copper hammer wrapped in a paper in my hand. I feel very sorry for the same and hence I tender my apology. I request that no police action be taken against me. For the purpose of assurance I am ready to leave the companys job." It is thus clear that he accepted the fact that he was carrying the companys property by wrapping the same in paper. He expressed his regrets and also tendered his apology and he requested that no police action should be taken against him. At that point of time he also assured that he was ready to leave the companys job. On the very same day he gave his resignation letter which simply read as he did not want to serve any more and therefore, he should be releived from the employment by accepting his resignation. His resignation was accepted which was communicated to him on 28-9-1991. It is further significant to note that at the time of incident which was midnight of 26-9-1991 and 27-9-1991 reports of the Security men were recorded. There is a statement of two workman viz. Abdul Aziz Ansari and Baliram Pandurang Patil, who were present at the gate at the time of incident. 7.The petitioner company has relied on the aforesaid contemporaneous documentary evidence which includes the confessional statement instantaneously recorded on the date and at the time of the incident. As against this, the workman has pleaded that he was forced and coerced to sign the resignation letter. As late as on 12-12-1991 he evolves a theory of force and coercion exercised on him to get his resignation. The workman having the support of the Labour Minister could have immediately written to the company that on 26th/27th September, 1991 he was forced to sign the resignation letter which he did not need to sign. After waiting upto 12th December, 1991 he writes to the company how his resignation was taken by force and coercion. The petitioner company has examined as many as five witnesses who were the authors of the aforesaid documents. There was no reason for those witnesses to give evidence against the workman. After waiting upto 12th December, 1991 he writes to the company how his resignation was taken by force and coercion. The petitioner company has examined as many as five witnesses who were the authors of the aforesaid documents. There was no reason for those witnesses to give evidence against the workman. All of them have deposed about the incident and about the voluntary confession and resignation of the workman. In all probability in my opinion, having been caught red-handed in such a situation the workman must have thought of resigning from the employment to save himself from the criminal proceedings which could certainly cast social stigma on him and his family. The theory of force and coercion put forward by him is only an after thought. I am prepared to presume in favour of the workman that at that point of time the security men might have told the workman to resign and go away if he did not want police action to be taken against him. If any offence takes place and if the offender is told that a police action would be initiated against him it cannot be said to be use of force and coercion. The natural sequence of the events can be very well visualized. The workman was caught red-handed while carrying with him unauthorisedly the property of the company. Having been accosted by the security men they might have told him that he would be handed over to the police for committing the theft of the companys property. In fact that was the duty of the security men. The workman in reply must have begged of them to save him from the Police Station and the police action and that he would resign from the employment. The prudent management and the prudent experienced officers thought it proper to accept the resignation of the workman without taking any further action. Such an event cannot be construed or incorporated as use of force or coercion. I am supported by a judgment of the Division Bench of our High Court in the case of Banda Navbharat Shikshan Prasarak Mandal (supra) in this respect. The learned Judges have dealt with two similar situations. One was delay in complaining that resignation was obtained by force and coercion. In that case the teacher had complained after 15 days that his resignation was obtained by force and coercion. The learned Judges have dealt with two similar situations. One was delay in complaining that resignation was obtained by force and coercion. In that case the teacher had complained after 15 days that his resignation was obtained by force and coercion. The explanation given by the teacher for the delay of 15 days in complaining that the resignation was obtained by force and coercion. The learned Judges have observed as under in paragraph 5 of the judgment: "In this background, it is not necessary to consider the reasons which promoted the Tribunal to disturb the action of the school management. The reasons offered are: (i) that the teacher was suddenly called from the class-room by the members of the Committee with whom the teacher was not familiar (ii) that the teacher must have been confused when so suddenly called and was made to read the file which contained the complaints received from the students, (iii) that the members of the Committee must have threatened the teacher with criminal prosecution and exposure in the society, (iv) the meeting was held in a room in the school hostel, (v) that the members of the Management Committee had come from Bombay with a definite plan to throw out the teacher and (vi) that it is improbable that the teacher of thirteen years service would submit resignation unless compelled to do so. In our judgment, none of the reasons furnished by the Tribunal are correct and can lead to the conclusion that the resignation was involuntary. The members of the Committee had undoubtedly come from Bombay to enquire into the complaints received from the students which were bound to damage the reputation of the school in a small town. It is futile to suggest that the teacher was confused when confronted with the complaints from the students. The teacher very well knew that he had done and this imaginary confusion could not have lasted for fifteen days before the teacher decided to withdraw the resignation. We are unable to find any reason to accept that merely because the teacher was called in a room of the school hostel, the idea of the Management Committee was to bring pressure on the teacher. We are unable to find any reason to accept that merely because the teacher was called in a room of the school hostel, the idea of the Management Committee was to bring pressure on the teacher. The school management denied before the Tribunal that any pressure was brought or threats of criminal prosecution were given and the Tribunal has not given a clear-cut finding that, in fact, such threats were given. The Tribunal is clearly in error in observing that the teacher of thirteen years service would not submit his resignation unless compelled to do so. The Tribunal overlooked the fact that there were complaints of moral turpitude which would have completely destroyed his social standing and would have adversely affected his family members. To avoid such consequences, any man in his senses would adopt easy way out, by tendering resignation. The resignation was tendered as that would have saved the skin of the teacher, both from the criminal prosecution as well as from the social stigma, which would have remained throughout his life. We have no hesitation in concluding that the teacher tendered voluntary resignation due to fear of the exposure and social scandal as a result of his unnatural activities. In our judgment, the Tribunal was clearly in error in setting at nought the action of the management in accepting the resignation." It would therefore be clear that mere telling the delinquent workman that he was caught red-handed while committing the theft of companys property and that he would be handed over to the police cannot be construed to be use of force or coercion. It is only to make him aware of the next consequence of his behaviour. Further, if he was physically assaulted and forced and coerced to sign a resignation letter he would have atleast on the next day complained to the General Manager or the Higher officer in the Management about the force and coercion exercised by the Security personnel. If his police complaint was not recorded by the Police Station he could have atleast written to the Management about the force and coercion exercised over him in getting the resignation letter signed. He had the full support of his cousin Labour Minister. It is therefore not possible for me to accept the version of the respondent workman that he was forced and coerced to sign the resignation letter. He had the full support of his cousin Labour Minister. It is therefore not possible for me to accept the version of the respondent workman that he was forced and coerced to sign the resignation letter. 8.Shri Singh, perhaps, is right in his submission that while traversing the evidence in the Award the learned Labour Court appears to have been in favour of the petitioner company to a great extent and thereafter the Presiding Officer appears to have taken an abrupt "U" turn to turn against the petitioner company. It is however clear that the Labour Court has not given any cogent reasons for not accepting the evidence of the five witnesses who were on the spot and who had recorded statements at that very time and the said statements were produced and proved by the company by examining one and all the authors of the statements. In fact it can be said that the petitioner company has proved the act of misconduct committed by the workman before the Court by holding the inquiry in the Court wherein the respondent workman had full opportunity of cross-examining those witnesses and he had thoroughly cross-examined them. Nothing much and nothing more could have been done by the company either in the domestic enquiry or before the Labour Court. In my opinion the petitioner company has proved the act of misconduct of theft committed by the workman. Even the Labour Court has accepted the fact that it was a serious act of misconduct on the part of the respondent workman. However, to give him benefit of reinstatement he merely termed the said incident being of a minor nature. While denying him the relief of backwages he describes the incident as of serious nature, so that he could be punished by way of denial of backwages. The learned Presiding Officer has observed that grant of backwages would amount to premium for the act of misconduct. The Labour Court has blowed hot and cold at the same time. If the incident of theft was serious for denial of back wages, it was equally or more serious from the view point of the company to reinstate him. By no stretch of imagination it could be said to be a minor incident. The Labour Court has blowed hot and cold at the same time. If the incident of theft was serious for denial of back wages, it was equally or more serious from the view point of the company to reinstate him. By no stretch of imagination it could be said to be a minor incident. 9.The fact that the workman had a clear service of 12 years did not give him licence to commit a serious act of misconduct of theft. To save himself from the consequences of the theft he had certainly resigned from the employment voluntarily. In this regard the following observation of the Supreme Court in the case of J.K. Cotton (supra) has been rightly pressed in service by Shri Singh: "A contract of service can be determined by either party to the contract. If it is determined at the behest of the employer it may amount to retrenchment unless it is by way of punishment for proved misconduct. But if an employee takes the initiative and exercises his right to put an end to the contract of service and the employer merely assents to it, it cannot be said that the employer has terminated the employment. In such cases the employer is merely acceding to the employees request, may be even reluctantly. Here the employees role is active while the employers role is passing and formal. The employer cannot force an unwilling employee to work for him. Under Clause 21 of the certified Standing Orders all that the employee is required to do is to give the employer a notice to quit and on the expiry of the notice period his service would come to and end. A formal acceptance of the employees desire by the employer cannot mean that it is the employer who is putting an end to the contract of employment. It would be unfair to saddle the employer with the liability to pay compensation even where the service is terminated on the specific request of the employee. Such an intention cannot be attributed to the legislature. It would be unfair to saddle the employer with the liability to pay compensation even where the service is terminated on the specific request of the employee. Such an intention cannot be attributed to the legislature. We are, therefore, of the opinion that where a contract of service is determined on the employee exercising his right to quit, such termination cannot be said to be at the instance of the employer to fall within the first part of the definition of retrenchment in section 2(s) of the State Act." 10.In these circumstances there is great substance in the merits of the case of the petitioner-company. The petitioner company is right in its contention that the respondent-workman admitted the commission of theft and tendered his resignation and had also tendered apology and had requested the company not to take any police action. After accepting the resignation of the respondent workman the petitioner company did not initiate any criminal proceedings against the workman. It did not also initiate any disciplinary action against him. The service contract come to the end in the aforesaid circumstances. There is no substance in the contention of the workman that he was forced and coerced to resign from the employment. In any case nothing prevented the company from dismissing him from employment after holding an enquiry. It was the resignation letter that persuaded the company from doing so. In any case the company has in fact proved before the Labour Court by examining the very same witnesses on the spot of the event that the workman had committed a serious act of theft, deserving the punishment of dismissal. The petition therefore succeeds and rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (a). 11.Before commencement of the hearing, as usual, I tried to bring about an amicable settlement of the dispute between the parties on monetary basis, Shri Singh the learned Counsel for the petitioner company had obtained instructions from his clients who offered an additional amount of Rs. One lac to the respondent workman. Shri Singh further pointed out that as a result of section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, the petitioner company has already paid to the workman a monthly amount of Rs. 6400/- and the workman has received almost an amount of more than Rs. Three lacs, which is not refundable. One lac to the respondent workman. Shri Singh further pointed out that as a result of section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, the petitioner company has already paid to the workman a monthly amount of Rs. 6400/- and the workman has received almost an amount of more than Rs. Three lacs, which is not refundable. Shri Singh pointed out that the petitioner company was also ready to pay to the workman full amount of gratuity for the service rendered by him. Shri Karande, the learned Counsel for the respondent workman however, submitted, after taking instructions that his client was not willing to accept the said offer. I, therefore left the point of settlement at that juncture and proceeded to decide the matter on merits which I have decided as above. Order accordingly. -----