JUDGMENT : 1. This petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed against the award of the Labour Court in Reference Case No.113 of 1993 dated 26-10-2007. 2. At the outset, it is observed that learned Advocate for the petitioner is absent consistently. It has been recorded that learned Advocate for the petitioner has remained absent. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner himself has now expired. The matter is being of the year 2008, the petitioner having expired, no steps have been taken so far as to bring on record the legal heir, despite opportunities were given to the petitioner. The Court is constrained to proceed with the matter with the assistance of learned Advocate appearing for the respondent. 3. It is the case pertaining to application for resignation, however, seeking benefits under VRS Scheme. It is stated that such Scheme was never in existence, when the VRS application / resignation was tendered by the petitioner. The case before the Labour Court was that the petitioner-workman had joined the service of the respondent-employer on 19/06/1980. The respondent-employer had implemented various schemes to reduce the on-roll excess staff and workmen. The company had made attempts to obtain resignation of the petitioner-workman by causing him mental harassment and issuing notices to him without any reason and asked him to accept the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Finally, in September 1992, when the petitioner-workman was asked to accept the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and was informed that he would be rendered the benefits of VRS, the petitioner-workman had sent his resignation under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme to the Manager of the company on 15/09/1992. 4. Thus, the company has relieved the petitioner-workman from his service without giving any valid reason. Moreover, the resignation of the petitioner-workman was accepted within very short period of 12 days, i.e. w.e.f. 27/09/1992 and thereby, the company implemented its retrenchment policy, which is against the principle of natural justice. The petitioner-workman has been removed from his service illegally and unreasonably. 5. Against which, the case of the respondent-Company was that the respondent-employer i.e. the Company, has submitted a reply in writing, wherein the facts stated in the Statement of Demand of the petitioner-workman has been refuted. The petitioner-workman has been removed from his service illegally and unreasonably. 5. Against which, the case of the respondent-Company was that the respondent-employer i.e. the Company, has submitted a reply in writing, wherein the facts stated in the Statement of Demand of the petitioner-workman has been refuted. It is stated therein that, the petitioner-workman had joined the company as the Welding Operator on 01/07/1985 and on 15/09/1992, he had given resignation, which was not accepted by the company due to certain conditions. But, subsequently, vide the letter dated 27/09/1992, the company had informed him that the resignation has been accepted. The company has produced on records, vide Annexure-C1 to C7, the letters whereby the petitioner-workman was asked to report on duty. 6. The the petitioner-workman was informed about his resignation being accepted vide the letter dated 27/09/1992, whereas the Statement of Demand has been accepted on 13/07/1998. Thus, the petitioner-workman is not entitled to avail any relief with regard to this time period and the same has been held in various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble High Court. Thus, it was submitted that the Reference of the petitioner-workman should be rejected. 7. The Labour Court has discussed findings by referring to the evidence that Copy of a letter is produced by the respondent-employer–the institution vide exhibit-50. This letter has been written addressing to the Labor Commissioner. And as mentioned in it during the procedure of settlement, it has been stated that the institution of respondent-employer does not have any objection to reinstate the the petitioner-workman at his original place (post). A request is made by addressing the Commissioner that he had given the instruction to the employee to resume the duty at his original place, which is produced vide Annexure-C of exhibit-48. A copy of the letter is produced vide exhibit-50 in which the employer–the institution has clearly instructed the petitioner-workman to resume his duty. The second letter was written vide exhibit–52 by the respondent-employer–the institution addressing the petitioner-workman which is produced, in which it was stated to resume the duty. The copy an another letter is produced vide exhibit-51. A slip of R.P.A.D. is kept along with it, in which the name and address of the petitioner-workman is mentioned and it has been forwarded by the employer. The copy an another letter is produced vide exhibit-51. A slip of R.P.A.D. is kept along with it, in which the name and address of the petitioner-workman is mentioned and it has been forwarded by the employer. The Reminder letters which are written to the petitioner-workman in which the instruction is given to him to resume the duty. Also a similar letter has been produced vide exhibit-53. 8. On examining these entire documents, it has been undoubtedly proven and revealed that the Institution – the respondent-employer has given sufficient opportunities and instructions to the petitioner-workman. But the respondent-employer has already provided this opportunity to the petitioner-workman in sufficient trials. Despite that, the petitioner-workman has not resumed his duty. In this circumstances, this reference of the petitioner-workman and about not resuming (non-attendance of) the duty despite the Notice of the respondent-employer–the institution. 9. In view of the aforesaid, findings given by the Labour Court with regard to the issue of resignation and thereafter, stand of the respondent-employer asking the petitioner to resume and fact recorded by the Labour Court that the petitioner has not resumed, despite several communications as discussed above, no case is made out for interference. 10. In view of the aforesaid, this petition deserves to and is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. 11. Learned Advocate for the respondent makes statement under instructions that as per the order of the Labour Court accepting the case of the workman as resignation, whatever is due to the widow, would be paid to the widow, upon proper application to the respondent-Employer.