Bombay High Court
M/S. Maharashtra State Road Transport ... vs C.R. Shingote on 5 May, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(4)BOMCR464, (2000)3BOMLR949, [2001(88)FLR375], 2001(1)MHLJ186
Author: R.J. Kochar
Bench: R.J. Kochar
ORDER R.J. Kochar, J.
1. The present petition has arisen from an award dated 29th June 1993 given by the first Labour Court, Thane in reference IDA No. 105 of 1987 in adjudication between the petitioner Corporation and an individual worker employed by it as a driver.
2. The petitioner is a statutory Corporation established under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 to provide transport facilities to the public at large. The respondent was employed as a driver in Kalyan depot. He was in employment of the petitioner Corporation for a period of about 8 years. I must mention that the petition is badly drafted and does not disclose all the necessary details. The facts are that when the respondents was asked to explain certain events in respect of his bus, he immediately tendered his resignation on 17th February 1986. The said resignation was accepted on 26th February 1986. By his letter dated 1st April 1986, the respondent requested the petitioner Corporation that he had tendered his resignation out of frustration and at the moment of loss of his temper. He was upset by the allegations of misuse of the bus. According to him, he was not responsible for the misuse of the bus as he had handed over the same to some other employee for office work. He was not aware who, why and when it was used for 200 kms. In the circumstances, he had requested by the aforesaid letter that his resignation should not be accepted and that he should be allowed to join the service and to continue as a driver. It appears that on account of his resignation having been accepted, the request of the respondent driver was not acceded to. The respondent driver was aggrieved by the said decision of the Corporation and therefore, he raised an industrial dispute for reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service. The State Government considered it expedient to refer the said industrial dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court.
3. Both the parties filed their pleadings. None of them adduced any oral evidence. The Labour Court gave its award in favour of the respondent driver granting reinstatement with continuity of service but without backwages for a period of 28-2-1986 to 31st August 1989. The award is more or less based on misplaced sympathies of the Labour Court Judge. The respondent driver ought to have adduced oral evidence to say and explain the circumstances under which he had resigned. It is absolutely clear that he had resigned out of his own decision which might be as a result of momentary frustration or loss of his temper or mental balance. Nevertheless, the resignation was a voluntary action in the sense that the petitioner management had not compelled him to resign. It is possible that he had no other explanation to the charge and therefore, he thought it better to quit at that point of time instead of facing an enquiry and punishment. We are in the area of conjectures as there is absolutely no oral evidence adduced by the respondents workman to explain the circumstances which impelled him to tender his resignation at that moment. This is not a case of resignation under compulsion from the employer or any third party. The said decision, of quitting service was his own decision. In the circumstances, the observations of the Labour Court that it was not his final act of resignation and that he wanted to revoke the same and that he was under impression that he was allowed to work as his resignation was not accepted are baseless and misconceived. There is no evidence before the Labour Court to know the intentions of the respondent workman. Merely because he has given certain facts in his letter dated 1st April 1986, the facts do not take shape of evidence on oath to know his intentions. The findings of the Labour Court are, therefore, baseless and cannot be supported in any manner. The respondent workman having resigned from employment voluntarily has no right to claim reinstatement and backwages.
4. In the circumstances, the award cannot be sustained and the same will have to be quashed and set aside. The petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b).
5. Petition allowed.