present case. The Labour Court, after taking note of the entire evidence before it, came to the conclusion that the workman cannot be expected to sit idle and wait for years together to see the result of the adjudication in the dispute and normally he has to secure employment to feed his family, especially when he is a physically challenged person. Taking note of the totality of circumstances, the Labour Court held that there was a forced resignation and that the workman was entitled to reinstatement in the same post with back-wages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits, excluding the period of employment at RSS Security service from March,2016, till August,2016, and that he was not entitled to any other relief. Accordingly, the Labour Court set aside the order of termination, dated 29.02.2016. Aggrieved over the award of the Labour Court, the management has preferred W.P.No.20058 of 2019 before this Court and the learned single Judge, while confirming the award of the Labour Court, has categorically held that the finding of the Labour Court that when the workman was solely dependent on the job undertaken by him, there was absolutely no reason for him to go on voluntary resignation. There were four workmen who had been asked to resign and sign on the dotted lines and except salary no other benefits have been given while accepting the socalled resignation letter. Though the workman has joined RSS Security service, the said job is none other than the contract with the management with whom a contract was entered to supply the manpower, like the workman. Therefore, it was a smoke screen created by the management to offer employment through an intermediary, that is to say,
