COMMON ORDER :- These writ petitions arise under similar set of circumstances. Awards passed in J.D. Nos.234, 235 and 236 of 1999, by the Labour Court, Guntur; are challenged in the respective writ petitions. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as the Management, and the workmen. While the Management filed the first three writ petitions, one of the workmen filed W.P. No.3)8 of 2006. 2. The workmen were employed at various points of time, with the Management While the workmen in W.P, No.27670 of 2005 is said to have resigned on 15.3.1999, those, in the other writ petitions, are stated to have submitted their resignations on the next day, mentioning different reasons. The Management, in turn, accepted the resignations, on different dates, and the letters of acceptance were also communicated to the workmen. The latter submitted representations on 27.5.1999, disputing the very factum of submission of any resignations. It is alleged that during the course of unloading a truck by the workmen on 15.3.1999, in the premises of the factory, the timekeeper in the factory picked up a quarrel, and had forcibly collected the signatures, on blank papers. They pleaded that they did not entertain any idea of submitting resignations, particularly when their employment is the only source of their livelihood. The Management issued replies, denying the allegations made by the workmen. Thereupon, the workmen approached the Labour Court, Guntur, by filing applications under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'). Through the respective awards, the Labour Court, directed reinstatement of the workmen with backwages. 3. The Management contends that the Labour Court did not discuss the evidence from proper perspective, and had arrived at conclusions, contrary to the evidence on record. Other grounds are also urged. Counter-affidavits are filed by the workmen, disputing the contentions raised on behalf of the Management. They reiterate the stand taken before the Labour Court. 4. WP No.338 of 2006 is filed by one of the workmen, stating that while awarding backwages, the Labour Court had mentioned the emoluments as Rs.2, I 96/-, per month, contrary to the evidence on record. According to him, the last wages drawn by him are Rs.4,255/- per month, and not Rs.2,196/-. 5. 4. WP No.338 of 2006 is filed by one of the workmen, stating that while awarding backwages, the Labour Court had mentioned the emoluments as Rs.2, I 96/-, per month, contrary to the evidence on record. According to him, the last wages drawn by him are Rs.4,255/- per month, and not Rs.2,196/-. 5. Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Counsel for the Management, submits that the record clearly discloses that the workmen submitted their resignations •voluntarily, and still, the Labour Court proceeded as though, it was a wrongful retrenchment, or dismissal of the workmen from service. He contends that the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of his client was not appreciated from the correct perspective. 6. Smt. D. Radha Rani, learned Counsel for the workmen, on the other hand, submits that her clients did not submit any letters of resignation at all, and the reasons mentioned in the alleged letters of resignation would throw any amount of doubt, on their genuinity. She contends that, having obtained signatures of the workmen, on blank papers, the timekeeper of the Industry, prevented the workmen from attending to the duties, and factious letters of resignation were brought into existence. She submits that the appointing authority did not even care to verify, whether the concerned employees submitted resignations, personally, and whether the alleged resignation are voluntary in nature. 7. The workmen were employed with the Management and the cessation of employment was brought about, on the basis of alleged letters of resignation. The Management did not notice any acts of indiscipline on the part of the workmen, much less any disciplinary proceedings were initiated. If the letters of resignation were submitted voluntarily, the workmen cannot revoke the resignations, after they were accepted. The letters of resignation were submitted by one of the workmen on 15.3.1999, while the others on 16.3.1999. The Management took its own time, to accept the alleged letters of resignation, and thereafter to communicate the acceptance officially. 8. It is the uniform case of the workmen that ever since 15.3.1999, they were prevented from discharging their duties, and as soon as they were served with the letters of acceptance, they recorded their protest and refused to receive any amounts, as terminal benefits. Before the Labour Court, the respective workmen and two other witnesses, by name, G. Kalpana and M Lakshmikumari, the spouses of two of them, were examined as witnesses. Before the Labour Court, the respective workmen and two other witnesses, by name, G. Kalpana and M Lakshmikumari, the spouses of two of them, were examined as witnesses. The purport of their evidence is that the letters of resignation were prepared, after the timekeeper obtained signatures forcibly, and they were not submitted voluntarily. It was also stated that even the contents of the letters were not seen by them. In the cross-examination of these witnesses, nothing substantial was elicited. 9. On behalf of the Management, MWs.1 to 4 were examined. It is pertinent to note that neither the appointing authority, who accepted the resignations, nor the General Manager (Materials), who is said to have received the letters of resignation and recommended their acceptance; were examined. The other witnesses examined on behalf of the Management, do not have anything to do with the submission, or acceptance of resignations. 10. The appointing authority has the power and competence to terminate the services of an employee, either on disciplinary grounds, or otherwise, in accordance with the relevant Rules or Standing Orders. In some cases, it may become necessary to hold domestic enquiry, and in other cases, not. Either way, the appointing authority would not be under obligation to hear or examine the concerned employee, in person. 11. Acceptance of resignation, however, stands on a different footing. In such cases, the proposal to bring about cessation of employment emanates from the employee himself Therefore, heavy duty rests upon the appointing authority, to ensure that the letter of resignation is submitted by the employee himself, and that there is no element of coercion or threat, in the process. The duty, in this regard, becomes more onerous, when the employees are, either illiterate or do not have proper communication skills. In the absence of such precautions, the process of resignation tends to be misused as a device, to terminate the services of an otherwise innocent employee, willing to continue in service. It must be noted that resignations of the members of State or Union Legislatures are required to• be presented personally, and due verification is made as to the voluntary nature of resignations, before their acceptance. The amount of precaution to be taken, in respect of unskilled labourer, is much more. 12. It must be noted that resignations of the members of State or Union Legislatures are required to• be presented personally, and due verification is made as to the voluntary nature of resignations, before their acceptance. The amount of precaution to be taken, in respect of unskilled labourer, is much more. 12. It has already been observed that no official of the Management, much less the appointing authority had made an endeavour to inquire from the workmen, personally, as to whether they submitted their resignations, at all. Added to that, the reasons mentioned in the alleged letters of resignation are somewhat abnormal. In respect of two workmen, the reason mentioned in, that they are indebted. It is not known as to how their becoming unemployed, would help them to clear their debts. The reason mentioned in the letter of resignation of the other employee is the alleged ill-health. There was not even an iota of evidence, to substantiate these grounds. Though the Management cannot be required to prove the said facts, it becomes relevant in the context of the flat denial by the employees, as to the submission of resignations. 13. Whatever may have been the impression under which the Management accepted resignations, at least, when the workmen submitted their representations, necessary verification ought to have been undertaken. No efforts were made in this direction. Further, the proceedings in the Labour Court were resisted, as though the workmen were removed on disciplinary grounds. The tenacity smacks of a bitterly fought litigation. When the Management did not have any problem in continuing the workmen till they submitted the alleged resignations, the nature of defence is not supposed to be severe. 14. Though extensive discussion may not have been undertaken by the Labour Court, it had arrived at just and proper conclusion to the effect that the workmen did not submit resignations, at all. The finding in that regard, does not warrant any interference. 15. Learned Counsel for the Management urged that the Labour Court awarded the full backwages, though the workmen did not plead and prove that they were not gainfully employed, during the pendency of the industrial dispute. The Labour Court does not appear to have bestowed its attention in that regard. However, the emoluments of the workmen are not on the higher side, and they are only unskilled labourers. The Labour Court does not appear to have bestowed its attention in that regard. However, the emoluments of the workmen are not on the higher side, and they are only unskilled labourers. Remanding the matter to the Labour Court, on this issue, would result in substantial injustice to the workmen. This Court is of the view that this minor error in the award can be taken care of, by denying the backwages to the extent of 25% to the workmen. 16. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition Nos.27670, 27671 and 27672 of 2005 are partly allowed, upholding the awards passed by the Labour Court, in all other respects, but refusing the backwages to the workmen to the extent of 75%. 17. The award passed by the Labour Court in I.D. No.235 of 1999 is not clear as to the basis on which the emoluments of the concerned workman were taken at Rs.2,196/-. Instead, the Labour Court could have left the matter open, so that the backwages can be calculated on the basis of the last drawn salary. Therefore, W.P. No.338 of 2006 is partly allowed, directing that the wages of the concerned workman shall be calculated on the basis of last drawn salary, by him. 18. There shall be no order as to cost.