Judgment : 1. Petitioner aggrieved by the award dated 28-2-2011 in Reference NO. 5 of 2008 of the II Additional Labour Court, Bangalore, rejecting the reference has presented this petition. 2. Petitioner claiming to be an ex-serviceman, joined the services of the respondent-company on 3-11-2005 as a Security Co-ordinator pursuant to the appointment order dated 1-11-2005, on wages of Rs. 8,500/-p.m. alleging illegal termination with effect from 30-3-2007 initiated conciliation proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘ID’ Act), which, when, ended in failure report, the State Government by order dated 9-1-2008 referred the Industrial Dispute to the II Additional Labour Court, Bangalore, for adjudication, whence it was registered as Ref. No. 5 of 2008. Parties having filed their respective pleadings, the Labour Court framed an additional issue over whether the petitioner was a workman as defined under the Act. Parties let in evidence whence petitioner was examined as W.W. 1 and five documents marked as Exs. W.1 to W.5, while for the respondent Management one Uday Shenoy, Executive (Human Resource) was examined as M.W.1 and Exs. M.1 to M.5 marked. The Labour Court returned a finding in the affirmative, on the additional issue, concluding that petitioner falls within the definition of the term ‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of the Act. 3. As regards the point of reference the Labour Court having regard to the material on record, and the evidence both oral and documentary, more appropriately the admission elicited in the petitioner’s cross-examination that no complaint was lodged over the allegation of his signature when taken on a blank paper was used as a resignation letter by misrepresentation of payment of overtime wages, and that Ex. M.1. letter dated 6-6-2007 did not contain any statement of allegation of the said misrepresentation, coupled with the fact that overtime wages for two days did not amount to Rs. 13,129/-, declined to accept the evidence of the petitioner as credible and accordingly, held that the termination of service of the petitioner by the respondent accepting his resignation was fully justified and accordingly rejected the reference by the award impugned. 4. Although Sri B.V. Puttegowda, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner did not encash the cheque for Rs. 4. Although Sri B.V. Puttegowda, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner did not encash the cheque for Rs. 13,129/- and initiated conciliation proceedings immediately on termination, and made representations to take him back to duty, are enough circumstances to draw an inference that the resignation letter was no voluntary, but actuated by misrepresentation, I am afraid is unacceptable. It is elsewhere said essentials may be inferred when the proved facts justify the inference, on one hand the Court must not surmise, conjecture or guess, on the other hand may draw on inference from proved facts so long as it is legitimate inference. In the facts of this case, noticed by the Labour Court at paragraph 19 onwards of the award impugned, the admission in cross-examination over receipt of the cheque for Rs. 13,129/- on 30-3-2007 Ex.W.1 which was not returned to the Management on the allegation that it was issued by misleading him, nor was it stated in the representation dated 6-6-2007 Ex. M.1, about the allegations of misleading him by taking his signature on the blank paper, coupled with the voluntary statement that the petitioner did not want to blame any one, the reason not to mention the allegations in Ex.M.1, it is difficult to accept the plea that the signature of the petitioner was taken on a blank paper used as a resignation letter. The Labour Court observed that the normal conduct of a person against whom a signature on a blank paper when taken and used as a letter of signature, would have opposed tooth and nail and complaint about the same, which conduct was not exhibited by the petitioner. In addition, Labour Court observed even assuming that the petitioner’s signature on the blank sheet was obtained by the Management to pay him overtime wages for two days, that wage component could not have been Rs. 13,129/- since on an earlier occasion, under Ex. W.4-petitioner was paid Rs. 1,420/- towards overtime wages. In the circumstances, the Labour Court did not find favour with the oral testimony of the petitioner. 13,129/- since on an earlier occasion, under Ex. W.4-petitioner was paid Rs. 1,420/- towards overtime wages. In the circumstances, the Labour Court did not find favour with the oral testimony of the petitioner. In my opinion, in the absence of relevant material constituting substantial legal evidence of the fact in issue that the resignation was not voluntary, but by the employer practicing an act of misrepresentation on the workman, no exception can be taken to the reasons, findings and conclusions arrived at by Labour Court in the award impugned. 5. On an examination of the contentions advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, I find the whole edifice of the case to be built up fallacious assumptions. Although learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had no other material to place before the Court and therefore an inference ought to be drawn from the circumstances, I am afraid that submission is unacceptable. Petitioner’s statement being self-interested was uncorroborated, when coupled with his conduct and material on record disentitled the drawing of an inference in his favour i.e., resignation was not voluntary and was on misrepresentation. 6. Learned Counsel though makes reference to the reported opinions extracted in paragraphs 22 and 23 of the award impugned, in my considered opinion, the facts of this case being entirely different from the facts in each of the reported opinions, non are applicable. Petition devoid of merit is rejected.