JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. Heard Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, MR. U.J. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. S. Bharali, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. The respondent No. 1 workman was engaged as a C.F.M Operator in the factory of the petitioner Tea Estate and he was appointed on 24.04.2002. On 15.10.2004, the concerned respondent workman approached the Second Tea House Babu, namely Sri Kusha Dutta and sought for his permission to throw away some ghugie spells (rubbish), which was lying below the tea manufacturing machine. As per the usual practice, the Second Tea House Babu allowed the respondent workman to remove the rubbish. It is the case of the management that while being permitted to do so, the workman took away about 111kg of tea from the dryer room with the help of two workers namely, Bikash Kumar and Rohit Kumar by claiming the manufactured tea to be also rubbish. On the same date and time, at about 3 p.m., three other persons namely Ramjan Ali, Mohonum Ali and Samsuddin Ali were caught by the Assistant Manager and the Chowkidar of the garden while they were removing such manufactured tea from the boundary premises of the factory. 3. Consequent thereof, an ejahar was lodged, which resulted in a police case. It is the case of the Management that during the investigation of the aforesaid police case, certain persons, who were caught removing the tea, were apprehended and interrogated and in course of their interrogation, they had stated that it is the respondent workman, who had instructed them to remove the manufactured tea from the factory premises. On the said information being provided, the authorities in the Management of the petitioner garden on 06.10.2004 had called the respondent workman and informed him about his connection with the incident of illegally removing the manufactured tea from the factory premises. On the said information being provided, the authorities in the Management of the petitioner garden on 06.10.2004 had called the respondent workman and informed him about his connection with the incident of illegally removing the manufactured tea from the factory premises. In course of such interaction, the Management authorities had given the workman an option that the Management would either refer him to the police for investigation as regards his involvement in the removal of the manufactured tea, or else, the workman was given an option that he may offer his resignation from his engagement and in the event of such resignation being given, the management will not refer him to the police for further investigation. 4. In the aforesaid premises, the workman had opted for the latter option i.e. to offer his resignation and accordingly addressed the communication to the Management of the petitioner Tea Estate, wherein it was stated that he desires to dissociate himself from his employment under the Management of the Tea Estate. Upon such resignation being given, the resignation was accepted and accordingly the employee employer relation between the workman and the Management was severed. In the aforesaid premises, the Government by notification No.GLR.47/2005/8 dated 19.05.2005 had referred a dispute to be adjudicated by the Labour Court, Dibrugarh. As per the reference, the following issues were referred:- (i) Whether the resignation submitted by Sri Kamaluddin Ali on 06.10.2004 may be termed as forceful resignation? (ii) If so, whether the workman is entitled to be reinstated along with back wages and other fringe benefits? 5. In course of the proceeding before the Labour Court, Dibrugarh, the Management had examined four witnesses, namely, Senior Manager Monojit Borkataki as MW-1, Sri Kusha Dutta, who was the Second Tea House Manager as MW-2, Bhaben Rajowar being the Secretary of the Garden Unit of the Assam Sah Mazdur Sangh as MW-3 and Sri Joy Prakash Karmakar as MW-4. 6. The resignation communication dated 06.10.2004 was exhibited as Ext.2. On the other hand, the workman had examined himself as the WW-1, Sri Gautam Paramanik, who according to the workman had written the resignation letter as the WW-2 and Sri Arun karmakar, President of the Garden Unit of the Assam Sah Mazdur Sangh as WW-3. 7. 6. The resignation communication dated 06.10.2004 was exhibited as Ext.2. On the other hand, the workman had examined himself as the WW-1, Sri Gautam Paramanik, who according to the workman had written the resignation letter as the WW-2 and Sri Arun karmakar, President of the Garden Unit of the Assam Sah Mazdur Sangh as WW-3. 7. The learned Labour Court, while proceeding in the matter, had arrived at a question for itself to be answered as to whether the workman had submitted his resignation voluntarily or the resignation of the workman was a forceful resignation. The said question itself appears to be a slight deviation from the referred issue inasmuch as, the reference was whether the resignation submitted by the workman on 06.10.2004 can be termed as forceful resignation and the said reference does not indicate any issue to be decided as to whether the resignation letter was a voluntary resignation or not. The said distinction is relevant inasmuch as, there is a substantial difference in the legal implication of a forced resignation and a resignation, which was not voluntary. Every resignation which is a forced resignation would be a resignation which is not voluntary, but every resignation which is not a voluntary resignation may not necessarily be a forced resignation. 8. Without going into the evidence of MW-1 and MW-2, even if the evidence of MW-3 is taken into consideration, it is noticed that MW-3 is the Secretary of the Garden Unit of the Assam Sah Mazdur Sangh, who is a representative of the Labour Union and was present when the event of making the resignation letter had taken place. The MW-3 states that the workman was not forced by the Management to submit his resignation letter. According to the said witness, the Management had asked the workman Kamaluddin either to go to the police station or to submit his resignation. Though the Management had asked the workman either to go to the police station or to submit his resignation, it is the workman who on his own did not prefer to go to the police station, and instead submitted his resignation letter. Though the Management had asked the workman either to go to the police station or to submit his resignation, it is the workman who on his own did not prefer to go to the police station, and instead submitted his resignation letter. MW-4, who is the Vice President of the Garden Unit of the Workers Union in his evidence stated that when the persons, who were apprehended for taking away the manufactured tea from outside the tea factory were asked, they had stated that the respondent workman Kamaluddin had asked them to take the same away. It is noticed that the aforesaid evidence led by the two Management Witnesses, who were in fact members of the Worker Union, had not been controverted in the cross examination and the same remain as it is. 9. An issue was raised on behalf of the witnesses of the workman that a particular line in the resignation letter had been struck off. When the original of the resignation letter is examined, it is noticed that although a few words in the resignation letter has been struck off, but such words only pertains to an expression that the Management had held the workman to be at fault for removing the manufactured tea. The said striking out nowhere effects the clear and categorical expression in the resignation letter that the workman desires to sever his employee employer relationship with the Management authorities. In such view of the matter, a striking out of some words from the resignation letter, which are not relevant to the issue as to whether the workman had tendered his resignation or not, cannot be of a significance, so as to render a decision in favour of the workman to conclude that he had not submitted the resignation letter. 10. From the award of the learned Labour Court, it is noticed that by framing the question as to whether the workman had submitted his resignation voluntarily or his resignation was a forceful resignation, the learned Labour Court arrived at a conclusion that the charge levelled against the workman that on 05.10.2004, he had stolen 111kg of tea belonging to the Management is satisfactorily established. But, ultimately, the learned Labour Court had arrived at a conclusion that the evidence on record had satisfactorily established that the workman had submitted the resignation letter under compulsion because of the Management holding him guilty of theft of tea leaves and in order to save himself from the police, he had done so and the resignation was not submitted under a normal circumstance and therefore, it cannot be said to have been submitted voluntarily. Accordingly, the learned Labour Court concludes that the evidence on record had satisfactorily established that the resignation of the workman was a forceful resignation. 11. Although the learned Labour Court had discussed in detail the evidence led by the parties, but in arriving at its conclusion that the resignation was not a voluntary resignation and therefore the resignation given by the respondent workman was a forceful resignation, no reasons thereof had been stated. The only aspect dealt with by the learned Labour Court which can be construed to be a reason is that the resignation letter was given under a compulsion because the Management had held the workman to be guilty of theft of tea leaves and in order to save himself from the police, he had submitted the resignation and therefore, it was held that the resignation was not given under a normal circumstances and therefore, it was not voluntary. 12. The expression "voluntary" is defined in the Black's Law Dictionary to be amongst others, an act done by design or intention or an act which is unconstrained by interference and not impelled by outside influence. On the other hand, the expression "forced" is defined in the same Dictionary to mean to compel by physical means or by legal requirement. 12. The expression "voluntary" is defined in the Black's Law Dictionary to be amongst others, an act done by design or intention or an act which is unconstrained by interference and not impelled by outside influence. On the other hand, the expression "forced" is defined in the same Dictionary to mean to compel by physical means or by legal requirement. Based on the meaning of the expression 'voluntary' and 'forced' as stated, when the facts of the present case is examined, what is noticeable from the evidence on record is that there exists situations which justifies the Management to put it across to the workman that there is an allegation against him that he had taken away 111kg of tea leaves from the premises of the management and further to that extent there is a police case, which is already registered and the materials collected by the police through interrogation of the persons, who were apprehended for taking away the tea leaves had specifically stated that they had done so under the instruction of the respondent workman. 13. In ordinary circumstances, such materials would justify an act on the part of the Management to refer the workman to the police for further enquiry and investigation. As referring a person to the police of a person against whom there are specific materials that he had indulged in taking away property of another person, is a normal course of action, therefore, it cannot be agreed with the learned Labour Court that the workman in order to save himself from the police had undertaken the act of submitting his resignation. The expression save himself from police would ordinarily be applicable where although there was no justification in a given circumstance of referring a person to the police, but somebody intends to do so. But when the circumstances so indicate that on the given materials available, it would be a normal course to refer such person to the police, any option given to such person to avoid such reference cannot be stated to be a circumstance where the person accepts it to save himself from the police. 14. But when the circumstances so indicate that on the given materials available, it would be a normal course to refer such person to the police, any option given to such person to avoid such reference cannot be stated to be a circumstance where the person accepts it to save himself from the police. 14. In such view of the matter, the act of the Management in giving the option to the workman to either to refer to the police or to submit his resignation, cannot be stated to be an act where the option exercised by the workman was not done by design or intention or that there was an unconstrained interference by the Management or that such act was impelled by any outside influence. Accordingly, the option chosen by the workman to prefer a resignation rather than being referred to the police, is an act which he had done by design or intention and it was unconstrained by any interference from the Management. Further, when the act of the workman is examined from the point of view of the meaning of the expression forced, it is noticed from the evidence on record that neither the workman was compelled by any physical means nor there was any legal requirement for him to submit the resignation. The entire option available before the workman was either to subject himself to the enquiry by the police on being referred or to submit a resignation. 15. In such view of the matter, in the given facts and circumstances, it is held that the workman was not forced to submit his resignation and it is more so in view of the fact that he had the other option of choosing to be referred to the police to undergo an enquiry for an act in respect of which materials are available on record for such an implication. In view of the aforesaid nature of the facts and circumstances as indicated, coupled with the meaning of the expression of 'voluntary' and 'forced', this Court is of the considered view that in the given facts and circumstances of the case as indicated above, the act of the workman in submitting his resignation cannot be said to be a forced resignation. 16. 16. It is further taken note that the reference made by the appropriate Government before the Labour Court was whether the resignation given by the respondent workman can be termed to be a forceful resignation in contra distinction to a reference as to whether the said resignation was a voluntary or not. In such view of the matter, this Court disagrees with the conclusion of the learned Labour Court that the workman had submitted his resignation under compulsion as because the Management had held him guilty of theft of tea and that it cannot be said to have been submitted voluntarily, which is found to be unacceptable. 17. In view of the decisions as regards the referred question whether the resignation was a forced resignation or not, the subsequent reference as to whether the workman is to be reinstated along with back wages and other benefits also stands unanswered by itself. 18. In such view of the matter, the award dated 30.12.2009 of the learned Labour Court in Reference Case No. 09.2005 is accordingly set aside. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of Petition Disposed of.