JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard the Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Compounder in M/s. Kiran Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd., Sarsawa, District Saharanpur on permanent basis w.e.f, 1.8.1993. He was transferred to the Store though he was appointed as Compounder and due to annoyance of the General Manager of the Factory, he was placed under suspension. It is submitted that the aforesaid suspension of the petitioner was revoked on 14.2.1987 but salary for certain days of the suspension period, was illegally deducted. It is further averred in the writ petition that the General Manager of the Factor}' had forcibly obtained resignation from the petitioner on 25.3.1987 against his wishes and under duress.
3. It has been argued by the Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not having his normal physical health and state of mind and as such he could not understand that he was being forced to resign. It is submitted that after re-couping from illness when he went to his duties, he was informed that he has already resigned.
4. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 122 of 1988 before the Labour Court, Dehradun. By its award, dated 1.12.1989, the Labour Court held that petitioner's termination was justified. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition challenging the award of the Labour Court.
5. I have perused the award. The Labour Court, on the basis of the documents and evidence, has recorded a finding of fact that the petitioner had submitted his resignation on his own and had thus brought the contract of service to an end himself. The Labour Court has disbelieved the evidence given by the petitioner that he had not resigned voluntarily and has found that the resignation was submitted by the petitioner in his own hand-writing on 25.3.1987 and in his application, dated 29.4.1987 (Ext. W-10), application, dated 5.5.1987 (Ext. W-5) and application, dated 21.5.1987 (Ext. W-6), he had never pleaded that he had submitted the resignation under any force and duress said to have been exerted by the General Manager. On the basis of the aforesaid applications filed by the workman himself before the Labour Court, the Presiding Officer came to the conclusion that the workman had submitted his resignation on his own sweet-will and not under any duress or influence as alleged by him now. The Labour Court has given a clear finding of fact that the petitioner is bound by his resignation and he had given the same in perfect state of mental and physical health. The finding of the Labour Court, on this basis, cannot be said to be illegal or perverse.
6. It has been held in Para 4 in M/s. J.K. Cotton Spg. and Wvg. Mills Company Ltd., Kanpur v. State of U.P. and Ors., as under :
"A contract of service can be determined by either party to the contract. If it is determined at the behest of the employer it may amount to retrenchment unless it is by way of punishment for proved misconduct. But if an employee takes the initiative and exercises his right to put an end to the contract of service and the employer merely assents to it, it cannot be said that the employer has terminated the employment. In such cases the employer is merely acceding to the employee's request, may be even reluctantly. Here the employee's role is active while the employer's role is passive and formal. The employer cannot force an unwilling employee to work for him."
Thus termination of service due to resignation by the employee from service does not fall within the ambit of "retrenchment" as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and is covered by voluntary retirement under Section 2(S).
7. No other point has been argued before me.
8. The Labour Court has given a categorical finding of fact that the petitioner had voluntarily submitted his resignation in perfect mental and physical health. Such a finding of fact should not be ordinarily disturbed in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India until and unless, the award is totally perverse and the findings therein are contrary to the law of the land.
9. For the reasons, stated above, the writ petition has no force and is dismissed.
10. No order as to costs.