6] Though, the incident of forced resignation is said to have taken place on 12 April 2001, the petitioner's alleged, earliest reaction came on 27 April 2001. The petitioner contends that in the interregnum , he was hospitalized and therefore could react. The petitioner has not produced any evidence to establish hospitalization for the said period. The petitioner, however, has produced the medical certificate from the KEM Hospital, but has not bothered to prove the same in accordance with law. On the basis, that strict rules of evidence do not apply before the Labour Courts, if such certificate is read into evidence, then the same states that on 13 April 2001, the petitioner received some treatment at the ' casualty '. There is no reference to the petitioner being admitted in the hospital, and certainly not for a period of almost ten to fifteen days, as was made out to be. Further, the petitioner's reaction, belated though it may be, was in the form of a letter demanding reinstatement, addressed to the employers and a complaint to the police, both dated 27 April 2011. Here again, there is no evidence that the complaint to police or letter demanding reinstatement, was in fact made or despatched. The letters/complaint, neither bear any endorsement, nor have any postal receipts been produced on record to establish despatch and receipt. This is again a vital circumstance, which was overlooked by the Labour Court, but rightly taken cognizance of, by the Industrial Court in making the impugned order.
