ORDER R. Gururajan, J.—Petitioner M/s. Le Meridien is before me challenging the judgment and award of the Labour Court, Bangalore in ID No. 168 of 2000 dated 11.1.2005 at Annexure-N. 2. Petitioner is a hotel having Health Club at Bangalore. Number of guests visit the Health Club in the hotel. Locker facilities for keeping personal belongings of the visitors of the club. Only the staff members of the Health Club can enter the change rooms where the safe deposit lockers are kept. The staff are required to maintain highest integrity, honesty and trustworthiness. Petitioner notified its staff members to the effect if they intend bringing cash of Rs. 500/- and above inside the establishment, they are required to declare the same at the Security and make necessary entries in the register kept in the 'Time Office'. 3. Respondent joined the Petitioner's establishment as Helper in Health Club on casual basis from 28.2.1994. She was absorbed on regular basis with effect in 1996. She completed her probation period and she was confirmed in 1997. Her job as Helper include massaging lady members. 4. On 5.7.2000, Respondent was given instructed instructions to work in the shift commencing from 7 a.m. to 12 noon and from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. On the said day, one lady member of the Health Club Ms. V.S. Anjan came to the Club in the morning and kept her purse in the Safe Deposit Locker of the Club. After utilizing the Health Club facilities, she left the hotel taking back her purse intact and thereafter she found that out of Rs. 700/-, Rs. 600/- were missing from her purse. She called on the Lobby Manager over telephone and registered a complaint in that behalf. Respondent was the only lady employee in the Health Club and she was on duty from 6.26 a.m. onwards and she only could enter the ladies Change Room, where safe deposit lockers are kept. Therefore, she was asked to open her personal staff locker. Respondent opened her personal staff locker and it was found that six hundred-rupee notes in her purse which was kept in the locker. She confessed in writing to the effect that on 5.7.2000 when the Health Club Member Mrs. Anjan went for swimming, in her absence, she took Rs. 600/- from her handbag and that it was her mistake. Realising her mistake she tendered her resignation. She confessed in writing to the effect that on 5.7.2000 when the Health Club Member Mrs. Anjan went for swimming, in her absence, she took Rs. 600/- from her handbag and that it was her mistake. Realising her mistake she tendered her resignation. Her resignation was accepted. A full and final settlement statement was prepared in terms of Annexure-F. The cheque given was not realized. Thereafter she approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner alleging that that her resignation was obtained by force. Respondent did not claim reinstatement. She only claimed payment of gratuity, leave salary, etc. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Respondent also had initiated the proceedings before the Labour and Conciliation Officer according to the writ averments. 5. On receipt of reference application under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, Labour Court registered the said reference on his file. Notice was issued. Parties entered appearance. Statements were filed by the respective parties. Evidence was recorded. Labour Court heard the parties and hereafter passed the following award. Petition is allowed. The resignation letter dated 5.7.2000 of the first party, since obtained under coercion, amounts to illegal termination of service and the second party is hereby directed to reinstate her to original post with continuity of service and pay 80% back wages. 6. Notice was issued. Respondent entered appearance through an Advocate. Parties are heard for final disposal. Records are obtained from the Labour Court. 7. Sri Subramanyam, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, would invite my attention to the material facts to say that the Respondent did commit any misconduct. He invited my attention to the resignation letter so also a confession letter. Learned Counsel says that the resignation was accepted by the management and there is no threat or coercion as alleged by her before the Labour Court. He would also say that the Respondent did not claim reinstatement before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and before the Labour Court. He invited my attention to the material facts, evidence and documents to say that the Labour Court is wrong in ordering reinstatement on the facts of this case. 8. Per contra, Sri Srinivasan, learned Counsel for the Respondent invites my attention to various documents, evidence and other materials available on record to say that the resignation was obtained by threat by the management. 8. Per contra, Sri Srinivasan, learned Counsel for the Respondent invites my attention to various documents, evidence and other materials available on record to say that the resignation was obtained by threat by the management. Learned Counsel also says that the Labour Court, after appreciation of the material facts, has chosen to order reinstatement. He wants the award to be confirmed. 9. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material on record. 10. Labour Court in the light of the pleadings has chosen to frame the following issues as could be seen in para-3 of the award reading as follows: (1) Whether the first party proves that the second party terminated her services by obtaining resignation by fraud, threat, and coercion on 5.7.2000 ? (2) Whether the second party proves that the first party voluntarily submitted her resignation and accepting the same she was relieved from service ? (3) If so, what relief is the first party entitled to ? The said issues have been answered in paragraph-6 of the award. Labour Court ultimately ordered reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. Let me see as to whether Labour Court is justified in the case on hand. 11. Admitted facts would reveal of resignation in the case on hand. The case of the workman is that the same has been obtained by threat and fraud. Claim statement has been filed by the workman before the Labour Court. In the claim statement, workman has categorically averred in para-1 that the resignation was obtained under threat and coercion. Same has been explained in para-3 by the Respondent -workman. Respondent would say that despite her repeated pleas that the money found in her purse belongs to her, it was not believed by the management and that she was harassed and compelled her to admit that she had stolen the money from the purse of the guest. She says that the Chief Security Officer, who was a retired Deputy Superintendent of Police, threatened that using his influence he would see that she would be put behind bars. Respondent -workman further says that she was taken to the Personnel Officer's Chambers and was coerced to write an apology letter and a resignation letter, and that it was only thereafter that she was released from the confines of the Personnel Office. Thereafter, the Respondent -workman approached the Labour Court for appropriate relief in the matter. Respondent -workman further says that she was taken to the Personnel Officer's Chambers and was coerced to write an apology letter and a resignation letter, and that it was only thereafter that she was released from the confines of the Personnel Office. Thereafter, the Respondent -workman approached the Labour Court for appropriate relief in the matter. 12. While countering the same, management would say that there was no threat or coercion on their part. They deny the allegations made in the claim statement. They say that the Respondent the plea of threat or coercion is an afterthought to suit her present claim. 13. Evidence was recorded. MW-1 filed an affidavit and he was cross examined. He reiterates the facts in the counter statement. His affidavit is marked as Exhibit M-8. In the cross-examination, he admits that he is from the Police Department, that he was a Deputy Superintendent of Police. He does not know as to whether Exhibit M-6 was given by the first party before Exhibit M-1. He admits that one Thomas was caught for theft and the said Thomas resigned from service. He admits that no complaint as such was received with regard to loss of money from the locker. He further states that Exhibits M-1 and M-6 were obtained on the same day i.e., on 5.7.2000. He admits that on 6.7.2000, workman was not at all given work. In his further cross-examination, MW-1 admits that he does not remember the name of the lady guest. He further admits that the complaint was given to the Lobby Manager and that he does not know as to whether in the said complaint the name of the workman was mentioned. He denied having dictated Exhibits W-1 and W-2. One Kanakaraj, Personnel Manager of the Petitioner has filed an affidavit by way of affidavit before the Labour Court on 16.7.2003. He admits that the workman has given her resignation voluntarily and it was accepted. He further says that Rs. 600/- was returned to the guest Mrs. Anjan in terms of Exhibit M-8. He was cross-examined. Various circumstances were brought out in his cross-examination. The workman was examined. In her evidence, she would say that there was an amount of Rs. 680/- in her handbag kept in the locker, that that money belongs to her. She was charged with theft and she denied the same. Anjan in terms of Exhibit M-8. He was cross-examined. Various circumstances were brought out in his cross-examination. The workman was examined. In her evidence, she would say that there was an amount of Rs. 680/- in her handbag kept in the locker, that that money belongs to her. She was charged with theft and she denied the same. She says that Exhibits W-1 and W-2 are not correct. She says that she has not written the same on her own, but they were written under threat at the dictation of Mr. Vani. In her cross-examination, she states that she had submitted no-due certificate. She further says that she has signed Exhibit M-4. She denies that she has committed an act of theft. At this stage, I must also see the documentary evidence made available. Exhibit M1 is a crucial document. It is a letter of resignation dated 5.7.2000. In the said letter, it is stated that the Respondent is going to resign to her job because she has her own personal problem and this is her own decision and that her resignation may be accepted with effect from 5.7.2000. Same is counter signed by the General Manager on the very same day. She has given one more statement at Exhibit M-6. In the said statement, she has stated that she was attending the Health Club duty, Mrs. Anjan came for swimming, that a sum of Rs. 600/- was found in her purse, and that she apologies for the mistake. This is her statement. Both the documents are received by the management on the same day. Management has accepted the letter of resignation and the workman was relieved of her duties with effect from 5.7.2000 in terms of the acceptance letter dated 6.7.2000. It is stated therein that she was required to give thirty days notice or thirty days salary in lieu of notice. Since the workman did not give notice, thirty days salary in lieu of notice would be adjusted to the privilege leave due to her. Management further required the workman to obtain No Due Clearance Certificate from all the concerned and to submit the same before the Personnel Department for arranging settlement of her accounts. Thereafter she has obtained no due certificate on 7.7.2000. Final settlement was not made. Subsequently, she has given a complaint. Management further required the workman to obtain No Due Clearance Certificate from all the concerned and to submit the same before the Personnel Department for arranging settlement of her accounts. Thereafter she has obtained no due certificate on 7.7.2000. Final settlement was not made. Subsequently, she has given a complaint. Management in para-3 of their letter at Exhibit M-5 has stated that she was not compelled or coerced or forced in the matter. Labour Court in the light of the material available on record has chosen to come to the conclusion that all is not well in the case on hand. Learned Judge has noticed the evidence on record and the evidence of Mr. Vani, Chief Security Officer. After noticing the pleadings and the evidence and the documents, Labour Court comes to the conclusion that if a workman was caught while committing mistake, and if he wants to cut off all his relationships with his employer, he would write a resignation letter and not an apology letter, and that, in all probability, apology letter at Exhibit M-6 must be of earlier origin. Learned Judge notices that having written an apology letter admitting the guilt, it is quite possible that the workman has written the resignation letter under duress and coercion of the Chief Security Officer, who had won over the situation. The Labour Court further notices that there is no reason for any person who has already resigned a job to give an apology letter to the employer. He has also noticed that payment was not settled immediately. He notices in para 15 of his award that here is a lady, who is caught with excess money alleged to have been stolen and that she is surrounded by the Senior Officers. Labour Court draws an inference from the material on record that there was no intention to resign the job, instead the apology was written on the asking of MW-1 and not on the free will and volition. After noticing all these aspects of the matter, Labour Court has chosen to hold that the resignation is not out of free will. This finding in the given circumstances requires to be accepted by me. 14. It is the case of the management that the workman was caught red handed while committing theft of Rs. 600/-. The customer has not given a complaint. This finding in the given circumstances requires to be accepted by me. 14. It is the case of the management that the workman was caught red handed while committing theft of Rs. 600/-. The customer has not given a complaint. Exhibit M-8 was filed in support of the theory of theft. In Exhibit M-8 the customer has not chosen to say anything about the Petitioner. There are two letters available - one is an apology letter and another resignation. There is absolutely no consideration of apology letter. But, the resignation letter is accepted. One has to see as to whether resignation is voluntary or out of coercion. Admittedly, Respondent is a lady. She was called by the Chief Security Officer who is a retired Deputy Superintendent of Police. In her evidence she states that he has threatened her to send her behind the bars. It is in these circumstances that the Respondent could have given resignation letter. Taking into consideration the surrounding circumstances and the evidence and the pleadings, the Labour Court, in my view, is right in holding the resignation at Exhibit M-1 is not voluntary and it was given out of threat issued by the management. It is also to be seen that there is no need for the workman to give resignation. There is also no reason as to why in the resignation letter the workman must say that she has her own personal problem and that this is her own decision. These wordings would be indicative that the said letter was given at the dictation by the management in particular MW-1 Police Officer. Therefore, as rightly argued, by Sri Srinivasan, the Labour Court is right with regard to non-acceptance of the resignation in the given circumstances. I do not think that the management has made out any case in the light of the allegation and the evidence on record. Labour Court's order is based on facts. 15. I must notice the contention of Sri Subramanyam, learned Counsel for the Petitioner that in the letter of workman she has not sought for reinstatement. In my view, that by itself would not prevent her from challenging the forced resignation. Law is well settled that after acceptance of resignation, parties are at liberty to challenge the same by placing material with regard to threat or coercion in the matter of resignation. In my view, that by itself would not prevent her from challenging the forced resignation. Law is well settled that after acceptance of resignation, parties are at liberty to challenge the same by placing material with regard to threat or coercion in the matter of resignation. Therefore, mere non-seeking reinstatement at the first instance cannot be a ground to nullify the award. In fact, subsequently, the workman has chosen to seek reinstatement. 16. Taking into consideration an overall view of the matter, I am convinced that the Labour Court is right in ordering reinstatement in the given circumstances. The Supreme Court in Dr. Prabha Atri Vs. The State of U.P. and Others, AIR 2003 SC 534 , has considered the resignation issue in the said judgment. The Supreme Court in paragraph No. 10 has observed reading as follows: Appellant who was an Anesthetist in the Respondent Hospital, had to undergo the agony of the present legal proceedings leading up to this appeal before the Supreme Court for her rather rash writing of a letter to the Hospital that in the circumstances stated therein she would have no option left but to tender my resignation with immediate effect." The Hospital clutched, as it were, at the opportunity and informed her that her resignation was accepted with immediate effect. She challenged the acceptance of her resignation in a writ petition before the High Court but failed. Hence her present appeals. The Supreme Court allowed them. It went into the question whether the said letter of the Appellant could be treated as a letter of resignation. It held it could not be so construed. There was neither the intention to relinquish office nor the act of relinquishment accompanying such intention. To constitute 'resignation' it must be unconditional with an intention to operate as such. At best it (the letter) amounted to a threatened offer more on account of exasperation to resign on account of a feeling of frustration. 17. The said judgment would be equally applicable to the facts of this case. Workman working in a 5-star hotel would not be resigning on the so-called personal problem unless she is compelled to say so by the Management. 17. The said judgment would be equally applicable to the facts of this case. Workman working in a 5-star hotel would not be resigning on the so-called personal problem unless she is compelled to say so by the Management. The Supreme Court has ruled that to constitute 'resignation' it must be unconditional with an intention to operate as such, and that at best, the resignation letter amounted to a threatened offer more on account of exasperation to resign on account of a feeling of frustration. While resignation may also result out of frustration, coercion, and such a frustrated letter of resignation cannot be accepted according to law, as rightly ruled by the Labour Court. 18. Facts of this case would compel me not to interfere with the award in question passed by the Labour Court on facts. Petition is therefore rejected.