1982 PLP 57 (PLC)

Appeal No. KAR-306 of 1981, heard on 13thJuly, 1981. Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)

Ss. 25-A & 37--Grievance petition challenging alleged oral termination of service as un-authorised-Petition resisted on plea that petitioner had voluntarily resigned - Handwriting Expert testifying thumb-impression of petitioner on resignation letter and also on acknowledgement of acceptance letter--Petition, in circum stances, held, rightly rejected and appeal dismissed in limine. Mirza Muhammad Kazim for Appellant. The appellant who was employed as a Double Sider in the Ring Department of the respondent mills, submitted a grievance petition under section 25-A,

1. R. O., before the learned IVth Labour Court on 24thJuly, 1980, challenging his unauthorized and oral termination from service. The Management resisted the appellant's grievance petition on the ground that the appellant had voluntarily resigned his employment with the res pondent-Mills on 16thJune, 1980, and on that very date his resignation was accepted and he was duly informed of the said acceptance. Before the learned Labour Court, the Finger Print Expert was examined and he has testified that the thumb impressions on the resignation' application, dated 16thJune, 1980, and on the intimation of the acceptance of the resignation are identical with the admitted thumb-impression of the appellant. On this evidence, the learned Labour Court has held that the appellant had voluntarily resigned his employment with the respondent Mills and consequently he had no grievance which could be agitated under any provision of the I. R. O. Aggrieved by this decision, the appel lant has come up in appeal to this Tribunal.

2. The evidence of the Finger Prints Expert, Hamid Hussain Khan, is clear and definite. He unambiguously and clearly asserts that the thumb impression on the resignation application, dated 16thJune, 1980, and on the letter accepting the resignation tally in all respects with the admitted thumb-impression of the appellant. In his resignation application, the appellant has clearly stated that he does not want to work in the respondent-Mills any longer and that he should be paid his dues. In the other document, which also bears the thumb-impression of the appellant as per evidence of the Finger Prints Expert, he has been informed that his resignation had been accepted. It was, however, con tended by Mr. Mirza Muhammad Kazim, the learned counsel for the appellant that it is highly improbable that the appellant on the one hand would be tendering his resignation and on the other hand, he would also be agitating against the unlawful activities of the respondent-Mills. Mr. Mirza Kazim suggested that possibly the appellant's thumb-impression on the resignation was taken by the respondent-Mills at the titer of his employment. There is however, not an iota of evidence in support of this contention. Even the appellant has not hinted any such practice to the respondent-Mills. However, the appellant has categorically stated that these 2 documents do not bear his thumb-impressions. However, in view of the positive and clear evidence of the Finger Prints Expert, it cannot be said that the documents in question do not bear the thumb impressions of the appellant. As the appellant had voluntarily resigned his employment from the respondent-Mills and the acceptance of his resig nation was duly communicated to him, as is evident by the documents bearing his thumb-impressions the learned Labour Court has rightly dis missed the appellant's grievance petition. I would accordingly concur in the view taken by the learned Labour Court and would dismiss the appeal in limine, Appeal dismissed.