JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition filed by the employer is directed against award dated 26.7.1999 given by Presiding Officer labour Court II U.P. Meerut in adjudication case No. 68 of 1997. The matter which was referred to the labour Court was as to whether the action of the petitioner employer terminating the services of its employee respondent No. 3 Smt. Savita Goyal w.e.f. 1.7.1996 was just and valid or not. The case of the respondent No. 3 was that she was forced to resign on 1.7.1996 hence it amounted to retrenchment and retrenchment was bad as no compensation was paid to her as required by Section 6-N of U.P. Industrial Dispute Act and that no inquiry was held against her. The further case of the respondent No. 3 was that on the very next day i.e. 2.7.1996 she gave a protest letter withdrawing the resignation. The petitioner employer contended that the resignation was given by respondent No. 3 on 19.6.1996 which was accepted on the same date hence she ceased to be the employee of the petitioner w.e.f. 19.6.1996 and there was absolutely no question of termination of services on 1.7.1996. Respondent No. 3 according to the petitioner was employed on 23.12.1993. Regarding date of employment the case of respondent No. 3 was that she was employed on 27.12.1988. 3. Labour Court held that respondent No. 3 had worked until 30.6.1996 and resignation letter was dated 1.7.1996. The respondent No. 3 in her complaint copy of which was filed before the labour Court and which was addressed to the editor had mentioned that the editor had said something very bad to her and she being a lady could not repeat those words. The labour Court did not believe the version of Sri Ajay Misra, General Manager of petitioner who had appeared as witness of the petitioner. Sri Misra had stated that respondent No. 3 went to the Director and Director after accepting the resignation sent the same to him. The labour Court held that as Director was not produced hence the said version could not be accepted. Sri Misra had stated that respondent No. 3 went to the Director and Director after accepting the resignation sent the same to him. The labour Court held that as Director was not produced hence the said version could not be accepted. It is further mentioned that there was no doubt that the respondent No. 3 had not supported her aforesaid version in her examination-in-chief, however, in her cross examination she had stated that Dhierendra Mohan Gupta the editor had called her in his cabin and talked with her rudely and threatened her and out of fear on the direction of the editor he wrote her resignation. The labour Court held that as no evidence against that version was produced by the employer, hence there was no alternative except to accept the case of respondent No. 3. Labour Court further held that the action of editor Dhierendra Mohan Gupta amounted to sexual harassment. Ultimately, reinstatement with full backwages was directed. The respondent No. 3 in her cross-examination stated that Dhierendra Mohan in his chamber talked with her rudely and threatened that he would do this thing and that thing with her hence out of fear on the direction of Dhierendra Mohan she wrote her resignation and also signed on blank vouchers. 4. A serious allegation had been made by respondent No. 3 hence it was essential for the employer petitioner to examine Dhierendra Mohan which was not done. Labour Court has rightly observed that attendance register etc. from 19.5.1996 till 30.6.1996 was not produced which could prove as to whether respondent No. 3 had worked during that period or not. Respondent No. 3 since 2nd July was protesting against the resignation, she gave application to the petitioner as well as complaint to District authorities. 5. However, the allegations in the written statement and oral statement of respondent No. 3 do not clearly amount to sexual harassment by the editor. In para 5 of the written statement filed before the labour Court by respondent No. 3, copy of which is Annexure 7 to the writ petition, it is mentioned that on 1.7.1996 against her wishes she was forced to resign from a prior date and this was done by the employer after calling her in his chamber. In para 5 of the written statement filed before the labour Court by respondent No. 3, copy of which is Annexure 7 to the writ petition, it is mentioned that on 1.7.1996 against her wishes she was forced to resign from a prior date and this was done by the employer after calling her in his chamber. In para 8 of the said written statement it is mentioned that apart from resignation, two blank vouchers were also got signed by respondent No. 3 to which she had objected. However, the employer misbehaved with her and respondent No. 3 out of helplessness and fear of scandal(loklaj) was not in her proper mental frame, hence under compulsion and fear of the employer she had to write the resignation letter and sign on blank voucher while in fact she was not paid any amount. 6. In this writ petition an interim order was passed on 26.10.1999 staying the operation of impugned award subject to strict compliance of Section 17-B of Industrial Disputes Act. Thereafter respondent No. 3 was reinstated. She worked at her post and was paid salary until 15.9.2005 at the rate of Rs. 6,500/- per month. This fact has been admitted by respondent No. 3 in her affidavit filed in support of stay application dated 5.10.2005. On 15.9.2005 i.e. after about six years of reinstatement and working at Meerut office of the petitioner’s institution, she was transferred from Meerut to Saharanpur. Through application dated 5.10.2005 she sought stay of the said transfer order. This Court through order dated 28.10.2005 (on the order sheet) directed that “The direction of the employer will not force the respondent No. 3 to join at Saharanpur on the basis of the order dated 15.9.2005 till the next date of listing.” In the order sheet there is no record that when the case was listed thereafter until 23.4.2007. On 23.4.2007 there is an order on the order sheet directing the case to be listed on 30.4.2007. However, there is an order dated 31.3.2006 passed on listing application (Civil Misc. Application No. 67852 of 2006) directing the case to be listed on 21.4.2006. Accordingly, the case must have been listed on 21.4.2006. It is therefore, clear that the stay order dated 28.10.2005 stood vacated on 21.4.2006 or latest on 23.4.2007 as the case was listed but stay order was not extended. Application No. 67852 of 2006) directing the case to be listed on 21.4.2006. Accordingly, the case must have been listed on 21.4.2006. It is therefore, clear that the stay order dated 28.10.2005 stood vacated on 21.4.2006 or latest on 23.4.2007 as the case was listed but stay order was not extended. Now the position is that respondent No. 3 is getting salary without working anywhere. Admittedly she is neither working at Meerut nor Saharanpur but getting Rs. 6,500/- per month. 7. I do not find any error in the direction of reinstatement given through impugned award. However, respondent No. 3 in her written statement did not clearly spell out her case and for last six years she is getting salary without work. 8. Accordingly, it is directed that the amount received by her since April, 2006 or April, 2007 when stay order against her transfer order stood automatically vacated shall be considered to be total back wages payable to her pursuant to the impugned award. Impugned award is modified and it is directed that no further amount as back wages shall be payable to respondent No. 3. It is further directed that within a week from today respondent No. 3 shall join at Saharanpur and work in a responsible manner. 9. Writ petition is disposed of as above. —————