CWP-6478- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA (217) Dinesh Kumar Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Amritsar and CORAM: Present: KULDEEP TIWARI 1. against the award dated 01.03.2012 (Annexure P Industrial Tribunal, Amritsar, wherethrough, the reference was answered against the petitioner/workman. 2. company, as a Page Maker, on 20.07.2006, through an appointment letter dated 11.07.2006, and was posted at Amritsar Office of Dainik Bhaskar, and his last drawn pay was Rs.7,200/ 20.12.2008, he was called by one, Mr. Vinod Sharma, HR (representative of the Management) -2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Dinesh Kumar Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Amritsar and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. Raj Kaushik, Advocate and Mr. R.S. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. **** KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(ORAL) The instant petition is preferred by the petitioner/workman, against the award dated 01.03.2012 (Annexure P Industrial Tribunal, Amritsar, wherethrough, the reference was answered against the petitioner/workman. Succinctly, the petitioner/workman was engaged with the company, as a Page Maker, on 20.07.2006, through an appointment letter dated 11.07.2006, and was posted at Amritsar Office of Dainik Bhaskar, and his last drawn pay was Rs.7,200/- per month. 20.12.2008, he was called by one, Mr. Vinod Sharma, HR (representative of the Management), in his office, and was asked to sign on some papers. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-6478-2013 Date of Decision : 28.08.2025 …Petitioner Versus ...Respondents KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. Raj Kaushik, Advocate and The instant petition is preferred by the petitioner/workman, against the award dated 01.03.2012 (Annexure P-4), passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Amritsar, wherethrough, the reference was answered the petitioner/workman was engaged with the company, as a Page Maker, on 20.07.2006, through an appointment letter dated 11.07.2006, and was posted at Amritsar Office of Dainik Bhaskar, and per month. According to the petitioner, on 20.12.2008, he was called by one, Mr. Vinod Sharma, HR (representative of , and was asked to sign on some papers. The instant petition is preferred by the petitioner/workman, 4), passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Amritsar, wherethrough, the reference was answered the petitioner/workman was engaged with the company, as a Page Maker, on 20.07.2006, through an appointment letter dated 11.07.2006, and was posted at Amritsar Office of Dainik Bhaskar, and itioner, on 20.12.2008, he was called by one, Mr. Vinod Sharma, HR (representative of , and was asked to sign on some papers. MANPREET SINGH 2025.09.02 09:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-6478- On enquiring about the papers, he was informed that he is to only sign papers, and he was not allowed to read the same. was obtained on those papers, giving chance to 3. terminated, and he was paid one month for the month of December, 2008. petitioner/workman, on 29.12.2008, wrote a letter to the General Manager Dainik Bhaskar, to t General Manager. of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the ID Act’) challenged his junior to the petitioner/workman, was retained whereas, despite the victimized. 4. conciliation proceedings, denied the allegations pertains to the resignation, allegedly tend claim of the petitioner was contested by the Management. It was denied that on the asking of Mr. Vinod Sharma, HR papers. It was specifically denied that under the threat and coercion, signatures of the petitioner/workman was further pleaded on behalf of the Management that services of th petitioner w -2013 ing about the papers, he was informed that he is to only sign , and he was not allowed to read the same. was obtained on those papers, under the threat and coercion, and without giving chance to ascertaining the purpose of those papers. Thereafter, the petitioner was informed that his terminated, and he was paid one month’s extra salary, in addition to the salary for the month of December, 2008. It was further pleaded that the petitioner/workman, on 29.12.2008, wrote a letter to the General Manager Dainik Bhaskar, to this effect. However, his letter was not accepted by the said General Manager. Raising the issue of infraction of provisions of Section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the ID Act’) his termination from the service. junior to the petitioner/workman, was retained whereas, despite the blotless work and conduct The respondent-Management has caused appearance conciliation proceedings, before the learned Assistant Labour Commissioner, denied the allegations, and produced two documents. One of the to the resignation, allegedly tendered claim of the petitioner was contested by the Management. It was denied that on the asking of Mr. Vinod Sharma, HR, the workman has signed on the papers. It was specifically denied that under the threat and coercion, signatures of the petitioner/workman were obtained on the papers already prepared. was further pleaded on behalf of the Management that services of th petitioner were never terminated, and as such, the question of making 2 ing about the papers, he was informed that he is to only sign on the , and he was not allowed to read the same. The petitioner’s signature under the threat and coercion, and without ascertaining the purpose of those papers. Thereafter, the petitioner was informed that his services were extra salary, in addition to the salary It was further pleaded that the petitioner/workman, on 29.12.2008, wrote a letter to the General Manager his effect. However, his letter was not accepted by the said Raising the issue of infraction of provisions of Section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the ID Act’), the petitioner has service. It was also alleged that the person junior to the petitioner/workman, was retained in service by the Management, work and conduct of the petitioner, he was Management has caused appearance during the before the learned Assistant Labour Commissioner, and produced two documents. One of the documents ered by the petitioner/workman. The claim of the petitioner was contested by the Management. It was denied that , the workman has signed on the papers. It was specifically denied that under the threat and coercion, signatures were obtained on the papers already prepared. was further pleaded on behalf of the Management that services of th never terminated, and as such, the question of making the The petitioner’s signature under the threat and coercion, and without services were extra salary, in addition to the salary It was further pleaded that the petitioner/workman, on 29.12.2008, wrote a letter to the General Manager of his effect. However, his letter was not accepted by the said Raising the issue of infraction of provisions of Section 25(f) , the petitioner has It was also alleged that the person by the Management, of the petitioner, he was during the before the learned Assistant Labour Commissioner, documents The claim of the petitioner was contested by the Management. It was denied that , the workman has signed on the papers. It was specifically denied that under the threat and coercion, signatures were obtained on the papers already prepared. It was further pleaded on behalf of the Management that services of the never terminated, and as such, the question of making MANPREET SINGH 2025.09.02 09:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-6478- compliance to the provisions of as put up by the Management from the service. 5. respective pleadings. part of the Management his resignation was obtained under the thr learned Tribunal concerned, has answered the reference against the petitioner/workman. 6. occasion for the petitioner to tender his resignation. oppression on behalf of the Management, whic of unfair labour practice. the statement of workman WW2, to substantiate that the pleadings as encompassed in his claim petition, is duly supported by the evidence. examination, the Management statement of the the petitioner/workman wrote a letter to the Management, about the conduct of Mr. Vinod Sharma, HR. However, the said letter was not taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal concerned, while dismissing his cla petition. It was also submitted that after submission of his letter Management ought to have conducted an enquiry, and thereupon only, have proceeded to terminate the services of the petitioner/workman. However, absence of the -2013 compliance to the provisions of the ID Act, does not arise. put up by the Management, is that the petitioner has voluntarily resigned from the service. Both the parties led evidence in order to substantiate their pleadings. Learned Tribunal has found that there is no error on the part of the Management, and the petitioner has miserably failed to prove that his resignation was obtained under the thr learned Tribunal concerned, has answered the reference against the petitioner/workman. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no occasion for the petitioner to tender his resignation. on behalf of the Management, whic of unfair labour practice. He further draws the attention of this Court, towards the statement of workman/petitioner, who stepped into the witness box as , to substantiate that the pleadings as encompassed in his claim petition, is duly supported by the evidence. He also submitted that in the cross examination, the Management is unable to impeach the credibility of the statement of the petitioner/workman. Finally, he submits that on 29.12.2008, the petitioner/workman wrote a letter to the Management, about the conduct of Mr. Vinod Sharma, HR. However, the said letter was not taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal concerned, while dismissing his cla It was also submitted that after submission of his letter Management ought to have conducted an enquiry, and thereupon only, have proceeded to terminate the services of the petitioner/workman. However, absence of the same is clearly an infraction of principles of natural justice. 3 ID Act, does not arise. The positive case is that the petitioner has voluntarily resigned the parties led evidence in order to substantiate their Learned Tribunal has found that there is no error on the and the petitioner has miserably failed to prove that his resignation was obtained under the threat and coercion, and finally, the learned Tribunal concerned, has answered the reference against the Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no occasion for the petitioner to tender his resignation. Rather, it is a case of on behalf of the Management, which clearly falls under the ambit He further draws the attention of this Court, towards , who stepped into the witness box as , to substantiate that the pleadings as encompassed in his claim petition, He also submitted that in the cross is unable to impeach the credibility of the inally, he submits that on 29.12.2008, the petitioner/workman wrote a letter to the Management, about the conduct of Mr. Vinod Sharma, HR. However, the said letter was not taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal concerned, while dismissing his cla It was also submitted that after submission of his letter (supra), the Management ought to have conducted an enquiry, and thereupon only, should have proceeded to terminate the services of the petitioner/workman. However, s clearly an infraction of principles of natural justice. The positive case, is that the petitioner has voluntarily resigned the parties led evidence in order to substantiate their Learned Tribunal has found that there is no error on the and the petitioner has miserably failed to prove that eat and coercion, and finally, the learned Tribunal concerned, has answered the reference against the Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no a case of h clearly falls under the ambit He further draws the attention of this Court, towards , who stepped into the witness box as , to substantiate that the pleadings as encompassed in his claim petition, He also submitted that in the cross- is unable to impeach the credibility of the inally, he submits that on 29.12.2008, the petitioner/workman wrote a letter to the Management, about the conduct of Mr. Vinod Sharma, HR. However, the said letter was not taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal concerned, while dismissing his claim , the should have proceeded to terminate the services of the petitioner/workman. However, MANPREET SINGH 2025.09.02 09:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-6478- 7. Management, has vociferously opposed the submissions, as made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that it is a case with evidence. Except the bald statement, nothing has been produced on record, to establish that the resignation submitted by the petitioner, is the result of threat, coercion or undue pressure. willfully submitt the workman of the same day. this stage, that he has not submitted his resignation. the petitioner is an educated person, and he knows the implication of signing any document. afterthought 8. learned counsel for the parties concerned, and has also perused award, passed by the learned Tribunal. 9. concerned, this Court, has tried to find out any evidence, which could prove the case of the petitioner, to the effect, that his resign the result of threat, coercion or undue pressure the bald statement of the petitioner, nothing has come on the record, to establish that the petitioner has submitted a letter dated 29.12.2008, to the Management. The petitioner has failed to prove 10. resignation with the Management, has subsequently, filed the claim petition -2013 On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Management, has vociferously opposed the submissions, as made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that it is a case with evidence. Except the bald statement, nothing has been produced on record, to that the resignation submitted by the petitioner, is the result of threat, coercion or undue pressure. He further submitted that the petitioner willfully submitted his resignation, on 20.12.2008 the workman received the full and final settlement of Rs.16,435/ of the same day. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to raise his claim, at this stage, that he has not submitted his resignation. the petitioner is an educated person, and he knows the implication of signing document. Finally, he submits that the document dated 29.12.2008, is an afterthought document, and it is not the part of the record of the Management. This Court has considered the learned counsel for the parties concerned, and has also perused award, passed by the learned Tribunal. With the able assistance of the learned counsel for the parties concerned, this Court, has tried to find out any evidence, which could prove the case of the petitioner, to the effect, that his resign the result of threat, coercion or undue pressure the bald statement of the petitioner, nothing has come on the record, to establish that the petitioner has submitted a letter dated 29.12.2008, to the nagement. The petitioner has failed to prove It is a clear cut case, where the petitioner, after submitting his resignation with the Management, has subsequently, filed the claim petition 4 learned counsel for the respondent Management, has vociferously opposed the submissions, as made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that it is a case with evidence. Except the bald statement, nothing has been produced on record, to that the resignation submitted by the petitioner, is the result of threat, He further submitted that the petitioner has 20.12.2008, which was accepted and received the full and final settlement of Rs.16,435/-, vide receipt Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to raise his claim, at this stage, that he has not submitted his resignation. He further submitted that the petitioner is an educated person, and he knows the implication of signing s that the document dated 29.12.2008, is an document, and it is not the part of the record of the Management. This Court has considered the rival submissions as made by the learned counsel for the parties concerned, and has also perused the impugned With the able assistance of the learned counsel for the parties concerned, this Court, has tried to find out any evidence, which could prove the case of the petitioner, to the effect, that his resignation dated 20.12.2008, is the result of threat, coercion or undue pressure, by the Management. Except the bald statement of the petitioner, nothing has come on the record, to establish that the petitioner has submitted a letter dated 29.12.2008, to the nagement. The petitioner has failed to prove this submission. It is a clear cut case, where the petitioner, after submitting his resignation with the Management, has subsequently, filed the claim petition learned counsel for the respondent- Management, has vociferously opposed the submissions, as made by the no evidence. Except the bald statement, nothing has been produced on record, to that the resignation submitted by the petitioner, is the result of threat, has , which was accepted and , vide receipt Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to raise his claim, at He further submitted that the petitioner is an educated person, and he knows the implication of signing s that the document dated 29.12.2008, is an document, and it is not the part of the record of the Management. made by the the impugned With the able assistance of the learned counsel for the parties concerned, this Court, has tried to find out any evidence, which could prove ation dated 20.12.2008, is Except the bald statement of the petitioner, nothing has come on the record, to establish that the petitioner has submitted a letter dated 29.12.2008, to the It is a clear cut case, where the petitioner, after submitting his resignation with the Management, has subsequently, filed the claim petition, MANPREET SINGH 2025.09.02 09:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-6478- which in the considered opinion of this Court, petitioner, has to stand on his own feet, at least, to establish pleadings, as petition, for this learned Tribunal concerned. 11. hereby dismissed August 28, 202 Manpreet -2013 which in the considered opinion of this Court, petitioner, has to stand on his own feet, at least, to establish as cast under the claim petition. petition, for this Court, to take a divergent learned Tribunal concerned. Consequently, finding no merit in the instant petition, the same is dismissed. 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 5 which in the considered opinion of this Court, does not carries any merit. The petitioner, has to stand on his own feet, at least, to establish prima facie the cast under the claim petition. There is nothing in the instant view, with the stand taken by the Consequently, finding no merit in the instant petition, the same is (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No The the There is nothing in the instant view, with the stand taken by the Consequently, finding no merit in the instant petition, the same is MANPREET SINGH 2025.09.02 09:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment