Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1176 (MP)

Mukesh Singh v. District Manager

2016-12-20

SANJAY YADAV

body2016
JUDGMENT : MR. SANJAY YADAV, J. 1. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the award dated 14.7.2009 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, whereby the reference of the industrial dispute as to "whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India in not considering the request of Shri Mukesh Singh S/o Shri Hindu Singh for reinstatement in service is legal and justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled?" has been answered against the petitioner 3. The facts giving rise to raising of dispute briefly are that the petitioner employed as messenger with the Food Corporation of India. On 16.1.1989 petitioner tendered the resignation with a request that the same be effective from 18.4.1989. The reason which mentioned therein (Ex. M/3) were "adverse domestic circumstance/affair". On receipt of the resignation letter, the competent authority, District Manager having found that there were dues to the tune of Rs.3400/- informed the petitioner vide communication dated 6.2.1989 to deposit the dues and only thereafter his resignation will be accepted. The petitioner availed earned leave from 27.3.1989 to 12.4.1989; thereafter joined on 13.4.1989 and in compliance to communication dated 6.2.1989 deposited the dues with interest vide money receipt No. 756 dated 17.4.1989. The resignation tendered by the petitioner was accepted on 17.4.1989. 4. The petitioner vide representation dated 16.11.1989 addressed to Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Bhopal informed that he tendered his resignation without thought and since the domestic condition has now improved sought for withdrawal of the same and requested for reinstatement. The representation was turned down on the ground that since the resignation was accepted on 17.4.1989, the same cannot be withdrawn. The petitioner was communicated vide communication dated 26.6.1990 which was duly acknowledged by him on 27.6.1990. 5. Rejection of representation led the petitioner to raise a dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, wherein it was contended by the petitioner that the resignation tendered by him on 16.1.1989 was withdrawn vide letter dated 27.3.1989, which was sent through under certificate of posting. It was stated that he availed earned leave from 27.3.1989 to 12.4.1989 which was sanctioned by the Management. Thereafter he joined on 13.4.1989 and worked till 17.4.1989 when his resignation was accepted. It was stated that he availed earned leave from 27.3.1989 to 12.4.1989 which was sanctioned by the Management. Thereafter he joined on 13.4.1989 and worked till 17.4.1989 when his resignation was accepted. It was contended that the action of Management in accepting the resignation on 17.4.1989 was illegal as the petitioner had withdrawn the resignation before its acceptance on 27.3.1989. 6. With the failure in conciliation the dispute was referred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal for adjudication vide Notification No. L-22012/251/2001-IR (C-II) dated 22.6.2004. 7. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner workman reiterated the stand taken in conciliation that the resignation letter having been withdrawn on 27.3.1989 though a letter under certificate of posting the respondent employer was not justified in accepting the resignation on 17.4.1989. The respondent on their turn reiterated that the application for withdrawal given on 16.11.1989 much after the acceptance on 17.4.1989 the petitioner is not entitled for reinstatement. 8. Parties led their evidence. 9. The Labour Court in seisin with the issue as to whether the acceptance of resignation was just; whether the petitioner had withdrawn the resignation before its acceptance. 10. The Labour Court found: 7. Now let us examine the oral evidence of the applicant. The applicant is examined in the case. He has supported his case. He has stated in cross-examination that on 6-2-89, he received a letter from the management that there was outstanding dues of Rs. 3400/- in his name and the resignation would be accepted only after payment of dues. He has stated that he joined on 13-4-89 and deposited the dues of Rs. 3550 on 17-4-1989 and got money receipt No. 756. He has further stated that then he told to accept his resignation letter and as such his resignation was accepted on the same day. This shows that the resignation was accepted with the consent of the applicant. 11. Evident it is that, the petitioner was willing to resign, as in furtherance to communication dated 6.2.1989 and 6.2.1989 whereby the petitioner was called upon to deposit certain amount of Rs.3400/- on 17.4.1989 failing which his resignation was to be declined. This shows that the resignation was accepted with the consent of the applicant. 11. Evident it is that, the petitioner was willing to resign, as in furtherance to communication dated 6.2.1989 and 6.2.1989 whereby the petitioner was called upon to deposit certain amount of Rs.3400/- on 17.4.1989 failing which his resignation was to be declined. Regulation 21 (2) of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation 1971 stipulates that "(2) Resignation may be accepted by the appointing authority with immediate effect or at any time before the expiry of the period of notice in which case an employee shall be paid pay in respect of unexpired period of notice given to him. In case a shorter period of notice is accepted at the request of an employee, he shall be entitled to receive his pay and allowances only in respect of actual period spent on duty in the Corporation." Thus it was within the discretion of competent authority to have accepted the resignation even before the expiry of notice period. 12. As to the contention that the petitioner vide letter dated 27.3.1989 sent through under certificate of posting being not the recognised mode of service of letter, thus it could not be established that the petitioner withdrew the resignation tendered on 16.1.1989. The Labour Court observed : "9. Issue No.2- The facts relating to this issue is that the applicant sent an application dated 27-3-1989 for withdrawal of resignation through Under Certificate of Posting which is Paper No.9/6 and U.P.C. is paper No.9/7 whereas according to the management, no such withdrawal letter was sent by the applicant. It is alleged by the management that this paper is fabricated much after the acceptance of the resignation. The withdrawal application dated 27-3-89 is a disputed document. Now let us examine the evidence of both the parties. The alleged withdrawal application dated 27-3-89 (Paper No.9/6) shows that for the first time , it was stated in the application that mental condition was not proper and being treated. This fact is not mentioned in his application of resignation and it is submitted by the management that this fact is also not mentioned in his earned leave application wherein it was stated that due to urgent domestic work, he was in need of earned leave. Moreover the evidence of workman also shows that he has admittedly deposited the outstanding dues of Rs. Moreover the evidence of workman also shows that he has admittedly deposited the outstanding dues of Rs. 3550/- on 17-4-1989 which was condition for acceptance of the resignation by the authority. If he had already filed withdrawal application for resignation letter, he ought to have referred the same and should raised on 13-4-1989 when he resumed duty. Moreover further evidence of the applicant shows that he himself stated after payment of outstanding dues to accept his resignation. Under the circumstances, It appears to be not reliable that any withdrawal application was sent for withdrawing the resignation letter before acceptance. 10. On the other hand, the management has filed a letter dated 6-2-1989 of the District Manager, which is marked as Exhibit M/4, wherein it was informed to the applicant to deposit the outstanding dues of Rs. 3400/- and only then his resignation would be accepted. Again a reminder dated 13-4-1989, which is marked as Exhibit M/5, was given to deposit dues with interest. This letter was accepted by the applicant. In compliance of the said letter, admittedly the applicant deposit the outstanding dues standing in his name. These letters and its acceptance itself show that no withdrawal application was existing at the time of acceptance of the resignation. Withdrawal application appears to be fabricated and as such it was not sent through registered post." 13. These findings are based on material facts on record and in absence of cogent material that the letter dated 27.3.1989 was duly served on the respondent the findings cannot be interfered with. 14. Taking overall view of the matter and the findings arrived at by the Labour Court when tested on the anvil of the material evidence on record this Court is not inclined to interfere with the well reasoned findings by the Labour Court. 15. Consequently, petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.