1977 PLP 672 (PLC)

S. P. Lodhi for Respondent. Appeal has been filed against the order of Labour Court ordering re‑instatement of the respondent on application made under section 25‑A of I. R. O., 1969. 2. The respondent was permanent worker as a Jobber in the employment of the appellants since 1967. It is said that in July, 1915, there was some trouble in the Factory and, therefore, some workers tendered their resignations on 11‑7‑75. The case of the respondent is that the resignations were not accepted and they were allowed to continue to work on account of interven tion of the Union and, therefore, ors 22‑7‑75, the respondent and other workers made applications to withdraw their resignations. However, on 23‑7‑75, the respondent was not permitted to resume his duties. He, therefore, served a grievance notice and thereafter approached the Labour Court. 3. The application was as resisted and it was pleaded that the respondent had resigned on 11‑7‑75 and on the same day his resignation was accepted. It was not true that the resignation was allowed to be withdrawn. 4. Originally, the case was pending in the Junior Labour Court and on its abolition it was transferred to the, Labour Court. Notices were sent to the parties by the Labour Court for 23‑2‑7o but the appellants failed to appear. So the case was concluded and on 24‑2‑76 impugned order vas passed ordering re‑instatement. It was observed by the learned Presiding Officer that the evidence produced by the respondent remained un-rebutted as on the date of hearing none on behalf of the appellants appeared and the affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants could not be taken into consideration as the witness did not appear for cross‑examination. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present appeal has been filed. On perusal of record and proceedings and after hearing the arguments, I Fee no reason to interfere with the impugned order. It vas the case of the respondent that the resignation tendered was not accepted and he was allowed to continue to work till 22‑7‑75 when he withdrew his resignation. Since the witness for the appellants did not appear for the purpose of cross examination, his affidavit could not be taken into consideration and, there: fore, it was rightly observed by the learned Presiding Officer that the evidence of the respondent had gone un-rebutted. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants, however, urged before me that the appellants were never served and, therefore, ex parte proceedings were not justified. I find no force in this contention as the endorsement or the Bailiff on the notice shows that the appellants were duly served. The copy of the notice also bears the signature of one of the officers of the appellants. 7. The learned counsel also placed reliance upon the order passed on the application for resignation showing that the resignation was accepted on the same day. To support this, a letter of the same date was produced intimating the respondent that his resignation was accepted. It purports to bear the signature of the respondent. I have compared the signature with other signatures of the respondent and I am of the view that the signature on the intimation letter does not tally with the other signatures and, therefore, it is not the signature of the respondent. Furthermore, by this letter the respondent was directed to collect his dues but admittedly the respondent did not receive any payment. This supports the respondent that resignation was not accepted on account of intervention of the Union and he was allowed to continue to work as usual. It seems, subsequently, the appellants changed their mind and anti- dated the acceptance of resignation. 8. In the above circumstances, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.