1976 PLP 884 (PLC(CS))

Counsel for Respondent. This is an appeal under section 36-D of the Industrial Relations Ordi nance, 1969, filed by Shahbaz Ahmad against the order dated the (?) November 1973, passed by the Junior Labour Court No.1, Lyallpur, whereby his petition for re-instatement was dismissed. The appellant was working as Assistant Cashier in the National Bank of Pakistan Lyallpur. He was relieved of his duty on 23rd august 1973. On 13th October 1973, he filed a petition before the Junior Labour Court for re-instatement on the ground that the termination of his service was illegal. The Bank resisted the application. The first objection was that the matter was not within the jurisdiction of the Court. On merits it was stated that the petitioner offered resignation and it was accepted, therefore, he bad no cause of grievance. The question of jurisdiction had been raised on the ground that the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Order) Ordinance, 1968, is not applicable to the employees of National Bank of Pakistan. It is specifically provided in section 1 of the Ordinance that nothing this Ordinance shall apply to the Industrial and Commercial Establishments carried on by or under Authority of the Central or Provincial Government where statutory rules of service, conduct or discipline are applicable to the workmen employed therein. There is no denying of the fact that Bank is the creation of National Bank of Pakistan Ordinance XIX of 1949. Without any manner of doubt the Bank is a creation of the Central Government. The rules of service etc. as given in the Standing Orders Ordinance are not applicable to the employees of the Bank. On the other hand, such rules framed by the Bank are applicable. It does not mean that the employees of the Bank have no remedy. They can seek any remedy under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 provided they have any cause of grievance. The difference in the classes of the employees of the Bank and those workers of private industrial and commercial establishments will be that in the former case q the rules of service, framed by the bank shall be applicable whereas in the latter case the rules given in Standing Orders Ordinance will be applicable. In this view of the matter, I hold that the Labour Court have jurisdiction in the matter. The next question is whether the appellant offered his resignation or whether he was removed from service by the Bank. It is pity that the lower Court does not take any care to record the evidence in the proper manner. On this question of fact only the statement of the petitioner was recorded. He said that he was removed from service on 23rd August 1973. No cross-examination has been recorded. However, the Bank has brought on record the relevant documents. Ordinarily, these documents must have been put to the appellant to admit or deny them. In his petition it was admitted by the appellant that he signed a Blank paper and thereafter his resignation was written on it. The resignation is in Urdu. Its equivalent translation is that the appellant was not in a position to continue service or: account of his domestic circumstances and so he request ed that his resignation should be accepted and he may be relieved of duty at once. The appellant signed in English. The date is 22nd August 1973. On the same date Head Cashier gave a note "forwarded for necessary action". The resignation was submitted to the Manager on the same date. The Note reads: "his resignation may please be accepted with immediate effect and confirmation of the principal office obtained subsequently.", On the same date this proceeding was forwarded to the Zonal Manager. He recorded the following order:

"Resignation accepted. C. M. As: approval obtained on telephone. The employee be relieved from service." In accordance with the above order the appellant was relieved from service on 23rd August 1973. It is an admitted fact that the appellant had not been doing any work thereafter. He gave a grievance notice on 20th September 1973. In that notice he stated that he had not resigned from service the question is why the appellant did not take any action from 23rd August 1973 to 20th September in case he had not resigned from service. His silence during this period goes a long way to prove that be actually resigned from service. If his signatures have been obtained by force or a fraudulent document was prepared by the Head Cashier, then he must have brought this fact to the knowledge of his superiors in the earliest opportunity. My conclusion is that the appellant gave his resignation on 22nd August 1973 and it was accepted on the same date. The appeal has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed.