JUDGMENT : G.B. SHAH, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel Mr. Premal Joshi for the appellants. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the award dated 6.12.2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhavnagar in Reference (LCB) No. 351 of 1991, the appellants had approached this Court by way of filing Special Civil Application No. 1944 of 2011. The said petition also came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 17.2.2011 and therefore, the present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellants. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent workman herein had approached the learned Presiding Officer, by way of filing statement of claim. It was the case of the respondent workman that he had worked continuously for the period of six and half years with the appellant as Pump-man. On 29.8.1991, the services of the respondent were terminated illegally without following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act). The appellants herein appeared before the Labour Court and filed written statement. It was contended that the respondent workman was working purely on daily wage basis for supply of water to Trapaj Gram Panchayat under the Scheme. The said Scheme was handed over to Trapaj Gram Panchayat and the respondent workman had tendered his resignation on 3.9.1991. Thus, in short, the appellants had attempted to advance a contention that there was no termination effected by the appellants and the respondent workman was not terminated, by any overt act of the appellants, but he had voluntarily, on his own volition, tendered resignation dated 3.9.1991 (Annexure-D page 81) and therefore, there was no question for complying the requirement of section 25-F of the Act. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that once the resignation letter was tendered voluntarily by the respondent workman, there is no question of accepting the same as the same was never withdrawn by him. Moreover, he has, then, submitted that since the Scheme was transferred to Trapaj Gram Panchayat, the respondent workman had tendered his resignation and the learned Single Judge has erred in finding that the so-called letter of resignation does not inspire confidence. Moreover, he has, then, submitted that since the Scheme was transferred to Trapaj Gram Panchayat, the respondent workman had tendered his resignation and the learned Single Judge has erred in finding that the so-called letter of resignation does not inspire confidence. He has, then, submitted that the date of alleged termination of service is 29.8.1991 and the Labour Court has passed the award on 6.12.2010 and it is impossible that any workman can remain unemployed during this period and therefore, the findings of the Labour Court granting 20% back wages ought to have been interfered with by the learned Single Judge, but, the learned Single has also erred in appreciating the said submission. 4. We have considered the above-referred submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellants. As per the case of the appellants, the services of the respondent were never terminated, but the respondent workman himself tendered his resignation without any influence and/or pressure. Moreover, as the respondent workman had voluntarily tendered resignation dated 3.9.1991, the Labour Court ought not to have allowed the reference by directing the appellants to reinstate the respondent workman. The alleged voluntary resignation letter dated 3.9.1991 is at Annexure-D (page 81). The said Annexure-D is in Gujarati language and translation of the same in English language reads as under:- Mahavir Balapbha Gohil Dated 3.9.1991 To, The Deputy Executive Engineer, Public Health Sanitary Sub Division. Subject - Regarding Relieving from Service. With reference to the subject noted above, I have the Honour to state that, it has been stated that I have been serving in your Office since 1985 till today. But I have not performed the said service continuously. But I have performed the duty as Beldar on muster roll (as daily wager). When I inquired personally, it has been learnt that the period of said service on muster roll is not sufficient for treating my service as continuous and permanent service according to the rules of Government. I started to perform duty as Beldar since 3/1990 in the office of Talaja and I was relieved from service with effect from 29.6.1991, as my services were not required by the department. During the aforesaid period, I have performed the service on muster roll. And aforesaid period of service is not sufficient for treating my service as continuous service. It has been stated that, I have performed duty as Pumpman in Your office. During the aforesaid period, I have performed the service on muster roll. And aforesaid period of service is not sufficient for treating my service as continuous service. It has been stated that, I have performed duty as Pumpman in Your office. But I was performing duty as Beldar, I have been relieved from service as my services were not required by the Government. I have no objection against it. I give undertaking that, I shall not make any kind of claim in this regard in future. I willingly withdraw the notice dated 30.8.1991 which was issued to you for keeping me continue in service. Yours Faithfully, Sd/- illegible Copy to:- Shri Pradip K. Thakkar, Shramik Sangh, High Court Road, Bhavnagar. I withdraw my notice as per the details stated above and I do not want to take any further actions in this regard. 5. We have minutely perused and considered the above-referred letter dated 3.9.1991. On bare perusal of the same, it appears that it is not voluntary resignation but, vide letter dated 3.9.1991, the respondent workman has declared that he was voluntarily withdrawing his notice dated 30.8.1991 submitted by him to consider his service as continued one. To substantiate that, we have to consider the case of the appellants, which had been put before the Labour Court, that the respondent workman was working purely on daily wage basis for supply of water to Trapaj Gram Panchayat under the Scheme and as the said Scheme was handed over to Trapaj Gram Panchayat, the respondent workman tendered his resignation. Thus, in fact, it appears from the plain reading of the above-referred letter dated 3.9.1991, that as the above-referred Scheme was handed over to Trapaj Gram Panchayat, the respondent workman had given notice on 30.8.1991, to consider his service as continued one after the scheme was handed over to Trapaj Gram Panchayat and according to letter dated 3.9.1991, the respondent workman had withdrawn said notice dated 30.8.1991 and thus, in our view, letter dated 3.9.1991 at Annexure-'D' (page 81) is not the letter simply for voluntary resignation of the respondent. The above point, whether letter dated 3.9.1991, referred above, is the voluntary resignation letter or it is simple letter, by which the respondent workman had withdrawn his notice dated 30.8.1991, had not been argued before the Labour Court as well as before the learned Single Judge. 6. The above point, whether letter dated 3.9.1991, referred above, is the voluntary resignation letter or it is simple letter, by which the respondent workman had withdrawn his notice dated 30.8.1991, had not been argued before the Labour Court as well as before the learned Single Judge. 6. As discussed above, letter dated 3.9.1991 was treated as voluntary resignation of the respondent workman by the Labour Court as well as by the learned Single Judge and if we consider the said document in the same fashion, then also, the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge has rightly observed and come to the finding that the so-called letter of resignation does not inspire confidence. Relevant paragraphs, being paragraph Nos. 6, 7 and 8 of the order dated 17.2.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 1944 are extracted below :- “6. The learned advocate for the petitioners referred to the letter of resignation dated 3.9.1991 (Annexure-D Page-81). I have examined the letter. It is noticed that the date of alleged resignation is 3rd September, 1991. On the other hand, on perusal of the award, it comes out that the appropriate Government passed the order of reference on 16th October, 1991. If actually, the resignation was actually and voluntarily tendered and the workman was really not interested in continuing with the petitioner, then he would not have immediately, i.e. in less than 15-20 days raised industrial dispute. Furthermore, during the evidence (deposition) of the respondent-workman, the petitioners do not appear to have confronted the respondent with the alleged letter of resignation. Besides this, there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the Competent Authority had accepted the resignation and passed any order accepting the resignation and relieving the respondent. There is also nothing on record to show that contemporaneously the respondent was paid his dues upon having tendered resignation and upon having been relieved. Even during his deposition, the workman had deposed that he was ready to resume work as and when allowed by the employer. The entire evidence of the workman, if considered in its totality and examined in light of the fact that the workman had raised industrial dispute which came to be referred in October, 1991, then the so-called letter of resignation does not inspire confidence. More particularly, because the workman has not been confronted with the resignation during his oral evidence. 7. The entire evidence of the workman, if considered in its totality and examined in light of the fact that the workman had raised industrial dispute which came to be referred in October, 1991, then the so-called letter of resignation does not inspire confidence. More particularly, because the workman has not been confronted with the resignation during his oral evidence. 7. Under the facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain the petition and I am not included to interfere with the award and dislodge the findings of fact and conclusions arrived at by the Labour Court, in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There is otherwise also no scope for re-appreciating the evidence and/or in disturbing the findings of the fact recorded by the Labour Court in this petition. The findings are not perverse. The award does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. 8. In view of the fact that there is no order accepting resignation and relieving the respondent in accordance with the law and/or any material to show payment and terminal dues, there is no reason to believe the case advanced by the petitioners that the respondent had tendered resignation.” 7. On the discussions made hereinabove, we do not find any merit or substance in the above-referred submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant. We have carefully perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 17.2.2011 in Special Civil Application No. 1944 of 2011. We do not find any infirmity or illegality in the same. We find ourselves in complete agreement with the same. Therefore, the present Letters Patent Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.