ORDER : 1. The workman in W.P.No.26696/2003 and the management in W.P.No.1151/2004 have challenged the award dated 24.09.2003 in Industrial Dispute LCID No.6/2001 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad. The award was disposed of by the Tribunal with the following observations: “19. It may be noted that even according to the Petitioner he was appointed on 25.4.89 and his probation was declared on 6.8.90. During his short span of service he also became a General Secretary during the year 1991-92. He says that he was not called for discussion. Ultimately he was called for discussion. Instead of discussing it with the Management he went on issuing letters about the alleged malpractices of the Company he was asked to come, he did not come from Haryana. Ex.W7 is proved to be fake. It becomes really difficult for the Management to cope up with such persons even if it is taken for granted that such resignation letter was sent thinking Ex.W7 to be written by Mr. Ramana, MW2 is still took him 10 months to submit the resignation. Meanwhile he was unauthorisedly absent. It is also cut in evidence that no discrimination was shown to him that his medical advance was sanctioned on the very next day as admitted by WW1 himself. Perhaps having been elected as General Secretary, he acted on high profile and it may be correct that Ex.W4 is the period during which his C.R.Ex.W4 correspondence to the letter he has written Ex.W13 to W16. any way I feel that no doubt there is some element of coercion on him but his having approached the Hon’ble High Court after lapse of 4 years and then approaching this Court in 2000 and his admission that he has been to Dubai thrice and going for the fourth time, I am of the opinion that even if there is some element of coercion as stated by me, in view of the latch of delay of 7 years in approaching the Court and his behavior, it will not be conducive that he should work again in the same factory. But as there is some element of coercion which may not stand the scrutiny of complete technical coercion, I am of the opinion that as he has worked from 25th March, 1993 almost for a period of five years. But as there is some element of coercion which may not stand the scrutiny of complete technical coercion, I am of the opinion that as he has worked from 25th March, 1993 almost for a period of five years. Hence, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice will be met if he is given five months pay as compensation for the five years service he has rendered taking his gross pay as of January, 2003 and multiplying it by five (He was on leave in March, etc. his pay of January, 2003 is taken). The amount shall be paid within 30 days after the publication of this award.” Thus, concisely the important observations of the lower Tribunal are as follows: (i) The petitioner was appointed on 25.04.1989 in the respondent Steel Plant and worked at Jaggaiahpet Lime Stone, VSP Mines and his probation was declared on 06.08.1990. (ii) During the short span of service, he became General Secretary during the year 1992-93. (iii) He tendered Ex.W8 - Protest Resignation Letter dated 28.12.1992 on the alleged ground that Sri B.V.Ramana, Manager (Mech.-MW2) issued Ex.W7 – Threatening Letter dated 13.02.1992 to him asking him to submit resignation. Though it is alleged that the resignation letter tendered per force and the management in order to conduct an enquiry on the aspect of unfair labour practice did not call him for discussion, however, in fact he was called for discussions and instead of discussing with the management and sorting out the issues, he went on sending letters to higher authorities like Deputy Prime Minister, Director General of Mines etc. making complaints against the respondent authorities alleging malpractices. (iv) Ex.W7 letter proved to be fake while it was referred to GEQD vide Ex.M15. (v) It became really difficult for management to cope up with such persons. Even if it is taken for granted that the resignation letter was sent thinking Ex.W7 was written by Mr. B.V. Ramana (MW2), still the petitioner took ten months to submit the resignation and meanwhile he was unauthorizedly absent. (vi) It came in the evidence that no discrimination was shown to him by the management and that his medical advance was sanctioned on the very next day. (vii) Ex.W4 – confidential report period may be corresponding with his complaints sent to the different authorities under Ex.W13 to W16. (vi) It came in the evidence that no discrimination was shown to him by the management and that his medical advance was sanctioned on the very next day. (vii) Ex.W4 – confidential report period may be corresponding with his complaints sent to the different authorities under Ex.W13 to W16. There may be some element of coercion on him but that will not stand the scrutiny of the complete technical coercion. (viii) The petitioner approached High Court after lapse of four years and then approached the Labour Court in 2000. Even if there is some element of coercion, in view of the delay of 7 years in approaching the Court and his behavior, it will not be conducive that he should work again in the same Company. (ix) Since he worked for five years, the ends of justice will be met if he is granted five months pay as compensation taking his gross pay of January 2003. 2. Heard. 3. Reiterating the pleadings in the W.P.No.26696/2003 learned counsel for the writ petitioner/workman Sri M.L. Ali would argue that in view of Ex.W7 threatening letter dated 13.02.1992 issued by the MW2- Sri B.V. Ramana, Manager (Mechanical) threatening the petitioner with dire consequences if he did not resign his job, the petitioner who hails from Haryana State and had no local strength or support had to submit his resignation under Ex.W8 - resignation letter dated 28.12.1992 under protest. Learned counsel would submit that in the said letter the petitioner has clearly mentioned that he was submitting resignation from service due to the threatening letter sent by Sri B. V. Ramana. He also mentioned therein that he approached the higher authorities at Visakhapatnam and explained about the matter and requested to take appropriate action and safeguard his service and also take action against Sri B.V. Ramana. However, the management did not take any action. Thus his tendering resignation to the service was due to duress and coercion applied against him but not out of free volition. However, the management did not take any action. Thus his tendering resignation to the service was due to duress and coercion applied against him but not out of free volition. Learned counsel further argued that without conducting any enquiry and giving a fair opportunity to the petitioner to prove the allegation of threat and coercion applied against him by B.V. Ramana and without taking any action against the said officer and without conducting enquiry by following due procedure of law, the respondent authorities simply accepted the resignation of the petitioner on 15.03.1993 and thereby the petitioner was denuded of the principles of natural justice. He placed reliance on Seetharamaiah v. Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Limited, Secunderabad, MANU/AP/0580/2001. Learned counsel would further submit that immediately the petitioner submitted Ex.W12 - Mercy Appeal dated 23.03.1993 to the 1st respondent requesting him to take necessary action in the matter. However, as there was no response from the authorities, the petitioner filed W.P.No.14643 of 1997 before High Court of Andhra Pradesh seeking writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of his mercy appeal dated 23.03.1993 but the said writ petition was dismissed by order dated 15.07.1997 (Ex.W23). The appeal in Writ Appeal No.905/1997 filed by him was also dismissed by division bench of High Court of A.P. by order dated 20.08.1997 (Ex.W24). Learned counsel would further submit that challenging Ex.W11 office order dated 15.03.1993 accepting his resignation without holding enquiry, the petitioner filed L.C.I.D No.6/2001. Learned counsel would submit that though the Industrial Tribunal opined that there was some element of coercion for his resignation, instead of setting aside the termination order only granted five months salary on the ground that there was a delay in petitioner’s approaching the Court. Learned counsel would submit that in the circumstances of the case the delay could not have been considered as a major factor. On the aspect of the delay he relied upon Raghubir Singh v. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, (2014) 10 SCC 301 = MANU/SC/0767/2014. Learned counsel would strenuously argue that a forcible obtaining of resignation would tantamount to termination of the service by the employer which would be a stigma on the employee. He placed reliance on Vice-Chancellor, Sri Padmavathi Mahila Viswavidyalayam, Tirupathi v. V.N. Das, 2001 (4) ALD 806 = MANU/AP/0486/2001, R.D. Surve v. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Learned counsel would strenuously argue that a forcible obtaining of resignation would tantamount to termination of the service by the employer which would be a stigma on the employee. He placed reliance on Vice-Chancellor, Sri Padmavathi Mahila Viswavidyalayam, Tirupathi v. V.N. Das, 2001 (4) ALD 806 = MANU/AP/0486/2001, R.D. Surve v. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., 1989 LAB.I.C. 1406 (Bombay High Court), Shriram Swami Shikshan Sanstha, Nagpur v. Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, 1984 LAB.I.C. 100 (Bombay High Court at Nagpur Bench) and M/s. Southern Roadways Ltd, Bangalore v. K. Padmanabhan, 1979 LAB.I.C. 234. Learned counsel thus ultimately submitted that the award of the tribunal is unsustainable and may be set aside. 4. No separate arguments are advanced on behalf of respondent in W.P.No.26696/2003 but the averments in their counter are that with the dismissal of Writ petition and writ appeal earlier filed by the writ petitioner, the tribunal ought to have dismissed the ID on the principle of constructive res judicata. On the aspect of constructive res judicata, the respondents relied upon State of Uttar Pradesh v. Nawab Hussain, 1977 (2) SCC 806 . However, the tribunal ordered to pay five months salary to the petitioner which is untenable. Hence the respondents filed separate W.P.No.1151/2004 and same is pending. (a) On factual side the respondents contended that the evidence placed before the Tribunal clinchingly established that the resignation was made by the petitioner on his own accord and four years thereafter he filed writ petition with false averments as if he was threatened by the management. It is further contended that, it is false to say that 3rd respondent accepted protest resignation without prior notice or opportunity of being heard. 5. So far as W.P.No.1151/2004 is concerned, the management filed the said writ petition questioning the award of the Tribunal in so far as the Tribunal directing the respondents to pay five months salary in spite of its finding that Ex.W7 - letter was proved to be a false document and that it became really difficult for the management to cope up with such person i.e., the workman. 6. The parties in these two writ petitions are referred as workman and management for convenience sake. 7. I gave my anxious consideration to the pleadings and arguments in both the writ petitions. 6. The parties in these two writ petitions are referred as workman and management for convenience sake. 7. I gave my anxious consideration to the pleadings and arguments in both the writ petitions. The crux of the case of the workman was that he was forced to submit Ex.W8 - resignation letter dated 28.12.1992 under protest because of the Ex.W7 - threatening letter dated 13.02.1992 issued by B.V. Ramana, Manager (Mechanical) and his harassments. In the citations relied upon by the workman, it was held that if an employer secures resignation of any of his employees by force or against his will, in substance, it amounts to the termination of the services of the concerned employee. Thus a forced resignation, which is not a voluntarily act of the employee but was brought about by force, duress or in any other manner by the employer amounts to termination of the service by the employer. There is no demur in the above proposition of law. However, in addition to laying the above principle, in RD Surve’s case (4 supra) the Bombay High Court has held that whether the resignation is a forced act or a voluntary one must depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no general rule can be laid down in that behalf. Obviously it is a matter of evidence and such a contention cannot be decided on the basis of mere arguments only. The High Court further observed that in a given case if it is held that the resignation being forced one amounts to discharge or dismissal, then also the employer can show that even if it is assumed that it is a dismissal, or discharge, then also it was in accordance with law or the provisions of the standing orders. Therefore, what is important to note is that in a given case whether the resignation was a perforce act or a voluntary one is a pure question of fact which has to be decided on the strength of the evidence placed before the Court or other authority. 8. With the above jurisprudence when the case on hand is carefully scrutinized, the workman addressed Ex.W8- protest resignation letter dated 28.12.1992 to the Deputy General Manager, VSP alleging that he was submitting his resignation from service as per threatening letter sent by B.V. Ramana, Manager (Mechanical) and due to his harassment. 8. With the above jurisprudence when the case on hand is carefully scrutinized, the workman addressed Ex.W8- protest resignation letter dated 28.12.1992 to the Deputy General Manager, VSP alleging that he was submitting his resignation from service as per threatening letter sent by B.V. Ramana, Manager (Mechanical) and due to his harassment. So, the basis for his resignation was the Ex.W7- threatening letter dt: 13.02.1992 said to be sent by Sri B.V. Ramana, Manager (Mechanical). The said allegation was squarely denied by the Management. In fact, the said B.V. Ramana was examined as MW-2 before the tribunal and he denied to have written Ex.W7-threatening letter. He also denied his signature thereon. Be that as it may, the said letter was forwarded to hand writing expert of GEQD who gave his opinion under Ex.M15 wherein, inter alia he stated that the signature on Ex.W7 does not belong to B.V. Ramana. Hence, the tribunal in its award has emphatically held that Ex.W7 was proved to be fake. Therefore, the allegation of the workman that he tendered resignation on account of the duress and coercion inflicted upon him by B.V. Ramana through Ex.W7 letter crumbled down and his resignation letter cannot be said to be on account of the threat or coercion exerted on him. This is manifest from the evidence produced before the tribunal. 9. The next contention of the workman that the Management without conducting any enquiry on his resignation letter simply accepted the same by virtue of Ex.W11- office order dated 15.03.1993 is also false and untenable, inasmuch as, the record produced by the workman before the Tribunal itself manifested that an opportunity of hearing was accorded to the workman. After receiving his resignation letter, the Deuty General Manager, addressed Ex.W9-letter dated 13.02.1993 to the workman clearly stating therein that the threatening letters of B.V. Ramana as alleged by the workman has ever come to the notice of the management and there was no intention to any one to harass the workman or terminate his services. It is further stated that B.V. Ramana has already called the workman on 31.12.1992 and explained him that there was no such intention on his part to harass or address any threatening letters to the workman and in spite of such clarification by B.V. Ramana, the workman persisted to accept his resignation. It is further stated that B.V. Ramana has already called the workman on 31.12.1992 and explained him that there was no such intention on his part to harass or address any threatening letters to the workman and in spite of such clarification by B.V. Ramana, the workman persisted to accept his resignation. It is further stated that in order to give one more opportunity before accepting the resignation, an intimation was sent to the workman on 09.02.1993 to meet the Deputy General manager at Madharam Dolomite Mine (MDM) on 10.02.1993 or at Visakhapatnam on 12.02.1993 but the workman did not turn up. Threfore, to give a final opportunity the workman was advised to see the Deputy General manager on 08.03.1993 in his office at Visakhapatnam, failing which it will be presumed that the workman has no interest to continue in service and appropriate action would be taken on his resignation. Thus it is clear that the Management has given him ample opportunities to meet the authorities and sort out the issues concerning to his resignation. However, without availing the last opportunity, the workman addressed Ex.W10-letter dated 23.02.1993 in an incoherent manner. Therefore, it would appear the Management has accepted his resignation. Thereafter to cover his laches the workman filed a mercy appeal which is not tenable under standing orders and filed W.P.No.14643/1997 seeking a direction to the management to consider his mercy appeal, which was dismissed in limini holding that there was an inordinate delay. The writ appeal was also dismissed. 10. In this backdrop, the workman cannot clamour that the acceptance of his resignation was unjust and illegal and that principles of natural justice were not followed in his case. The tribunal only incidentally held that there may be some harassment but that cannot be technically considered. Ultimately on a sympathetic view the tribunal directed the management to pay five months salary. On a conspectus of facts and law I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the award impugned by both parties. 11. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.