1995 PLP 340 (PLC)

Ali Ahmad for Respondent. Date of hearing: 23rd December, 1987. This is an appeal filed by the appellants against an impugned order, dated 18‑3‑1987, passed by the Sindh Labour Court No. IIIrd, Karachi, who had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent directing his reinstatement in service with full back benefits, under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent claimed to be a permanent workman with the appellants establishment working as pressman and during the course of his employment he claimed to have met with an accident and remained under treatment in Sindh Employees Social Security Institution wherefrom on 7‑8‑1986 he was issued fitness certificate to resume work. The respondent claimed that on the next day when he reported for duty he was not allowed to do so and he was verbally informed that his services had been terminated. Being aggrieved the respondent served upon the appellants establishment his grievance notice followed by the grievance petition before the learned Labour Court under section 25‑A, I.R.O.,1969.

3. The appellants establishment had denied the contentions of the respondent and had claimed that in fact the respondent had himself served his relationship by tendering his resignation for the employment by serving one month's notice on 21‑6‑1986, therefore, according to the appellants establishment the respondent was not entitled to maintain his grievance petition which was liable to be dismissed.

4. The respondent, in support of his case, had only examined himself while the appellants establishment preferred not to lead any evidence in support of their defence. Thereafter the learned Labour Court had passed the impugned order, hence, the present appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. Khurshid Ahmad Siddiqi the learned representative for the appellants establishment and Mr. Ali Ahmad the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent and have also perused the record and proceedings of the case. It is an admitted position that the respondent had served upon the appellants establishment a notice under‑Standing Order 12 which was to expire on 21‑7‑1986 and that before expiry of the same, the respondent had sustained an injury during the course of his employment with the appellants establishment and was remained under treatment with the Sindh Employees Social Security Institution up to 8‑8‑1986 on which date he was declared fit to resume the duties. It is again an admitted position that the appellants establishment did not accept the notice of resignation of the respondent nor it was contended so, either in the reply statement before the learned Labour Court or through any witness before the said Court or it had ever contended that they had made payments to the respondent in full and final settlement of his dues. In view of this position, I am of the view that the appellants, establishment has no case and that the impugned order is well‑reasoned and it needs not to be interfered with.

6. For the reasons stated by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed and the respondent is directed to be reinstated in service with full back benefits forthwith. The amount of back benefits, deposited by the appellants establishment before this Tribunal be immediately paid to the respondent on due verification. M.Y.H./1161/Lb.S ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeal dismissed.