that the letter of resignation was obtained by coercion, and it is only because he had voluntarily submitted his resignation that he had kept a copy thereof with him. The dispute before the Industrial Tribunal was whether the letter of resignation, submitted by the 2nd respondent-workman, was obtained by coercion. The Tribunal held that it could not be said to be a voluntary resignation, but was either due to frustration or due to coercion. If, as has been held by the Tribunal in the earlier portion of the impugned award, the letter of resignation was not due to coercion, then, even if it was because of frustration, it would not amount to illegal termination of the services of the 2nd respondent-workman necessitating compliance with Section 25-F of the Act. It is only if the services of an employee are terminated, as a measure of punishment, is a domestic enquiry required to be held. If the termination of the services of a workman, is otherwise than as a punishment, Section 25-F of the Act necessitates compliance. By his voluntary act, of submitting his letter of resignation, the 2nd respondentworkman ceased to remain an employee of the petitionercompany and cannot, therefore, contend that his services were illegally termination.
