1982 PLP 885 (PLC(CS))

Thanking you. Yours faithfully, (Sd/‑) Muhammad Yousuf Butt" The respondents by their letter, dated 9th February, 1981 informed the appellant that his resignation had been accepted from the close of office on 27th January, 1981 as requested by him, and since be had served only 8 day's notice of resignation, whereas, he was required to serve 1 month's, notice for resignation, he would surrender to the Corporation an amount equal to his 22 day's pay in lieu of the period of notice, which was hot. The appellant, by his letter, dated 16th February, 1981 expressed surprise at the receipt of the above communication and contended that he tad not submitted any resignation at all and that in fact he had "applied on 20th January, 1981 for medical leave on 26th January, 1981 alongwith medical certificate from the Corporation's authorized Medical Officer advising him rest upto 16th February, 1981 because of an accident to him". As the contention of the appellant was not accepted by the respondent‑Corporation, the appellant, after service of the required grievance notice, submitted a grievance petition before the learned Vth labour Court which has dismissed his grievance petition by its decision, given on 4th October, 1981 on the ground that the appellant had volunt arily resigned from his service and his resignation was duly accepted by he respondent corporation. Dissatisfied with this decision, the appellant has come up in appeal to this Tribunal.

2. The sole point which has been canvassed before me by Mr. Ali Amjad, the learned counsel for the appellant, is that according to the rules of Service applicable to the appellant, he was first required to rive to the Corporation notice in writing of his intention to resign from this employment in the Corporation and a subsequent notice, in writing, endering his resignation for the service of the Corporation. The Rule relied upon by Mr. Ali Amjad is Regulation 18 of the Investment Corporation of Pakistan (Service) Regulations, made by the Board of Directors if the

1. C. P., at their first meeting held on 6th May, 1966 under sec tion 36 of the Investment Corporation of West Pakistan Ordinance, 1966 The said Regulation reads as follows:‑ 18.‑ (a) A confirmed employee intending to resign his employment in the Corporation shall serve on the Corporation if he is an employee of Category (A) or (B), or (C) three full months' notice in writ ing and. if he is an employee of Category (D) or (E) one full month's notice in writing disclosing his intention to resign his employment. (b) On the date of expiry of the notice or on any earlier date during the continuance of the notice the employee may tender his resignation in writing to the Corporation which shall ipso facto become effective on the expiry of the period of notice where upon the employment of the employee shall stand discontinued. (c) The employee shall have an option after tendering his resigna tion to pay to the Corporation at any time during the conti nuance of the notice a sum equal to his pay for the un-expired period of notice. In such event the resignation shall become effective on the date of such payment, Provided firstly that no resignation shall become effective during the pendency of any disciplinary proceedings against the employee: Provided secondly that the Managing Director may waive the un- expired period of notice and forego any payment in lieu of the notice period and accept the resignation notwithstanding the pendency of any disciplinary proceeding against the employee whereupon the employment of the employee shall stand dis continued. (d) Unless tile resignation becomes effective in one of the ways men tioned heroin, the employee shall not absent himself from duty without leave of absence previously obtained from the Corpo ration. On which wilful contravention of this provision the employee shall forfeit to the Corporation an amount equal to his pay for the un-expired period of notice and may also be liable to dismissal. (e) An employee who is on probation or has been employed on temporary basis may resign his employment in the Corporation without giving notice of his intention to resign. The resignation shall not become effective unless accepted by the Managing Director. On such acceptance the employment of such employee shall stand discontinued."

3. A bare perusal of the above Regulation indicates that there are 2 requirements before resignation of an employee in the respondent corpo ration can become effective, first, a notice in writing indicating an inten tion to resign, the period of notice being from one month to three months depending upon the category to which the employee belongs, and second, a notice in writing tendering resignation from employment. In the instant case, as already indicated, there was only the application, dated 20th January, 1981. The wording of the said application suggest an intention to resign rather than an actual resignation, for the word "decided" is indicative more of intention than actual implementation of the intention, and this view gains further support from the fact that the resignation was requested from a future date. However, even if the con tention of Mr. Wazir H. Rizvi, the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation is accepted that this was not a letter of intention to resign, but notice of actual resignation, the position would not be materially altered, for in that case the first requirement of Regulation 18 i. e. of intended resignation would be wanting. Mr. Rizvi sought to argue that the requirements of notice of intended resignation and the fixation of the period of such notice are entirely for the benefit of the res pondent Corporation and it was upto the Corporation to waive the requirement of an intended resignation or the period of the notice. Mr. Rizvi is quite correct in asserting that the above 2 requirements are for the benefit of the employer. However, although Regulation 18 empowers the Managing Director to waive the un‑expired period of notice and forego any payment in lieu of the notice, there is no indication that the requirement of notice of intended resignation or notice of actual resignation can be dispensed with by the Corporation. Clause (d) of Regulation 18, on the other hand, seems to indicate that the requirements of both the notices are mandatory, for it provides that unless the resigna tion becomes effective by either of the ways specified in the Regulation, the employee is not to absent himself from duty without leave.

4. It was next urged by Mr. Rizvi that the Investment Corporation of Pakistan (Service) Regulations are no longer in force having been super seded by the Report of Wage Commission for Banks and Financial Institutions. This was also the view which has found favour with the learned Labour Court and it was on this view of the matter taken by it that it has dismissed the appellant's grievance petition. No doubt, the 1974‑75 Report of the Commission lays down the terms and conditions of service of the employees of the banks and financial institutions in Chapter XIV of the Report, and paragraphs 234 and 235 relate to the resignation of employees and acceptance thereof by the employers. But the said Report has been modified by the Second Wage Commission's Award for Banks and Financial Institutions, which was published in the Gazette; of Pakistan (Extraordinary), dated 24th July, 1978. It is the said Award, which would govern the case of the appellant. Paragraph 27 of Chapter I of the Award provides that "as for the financial institutions, they may follow their own Services Rules framed under their respective Charter, if any". The Investment Corporation of Pakistan (Service) Regu lations have been framed by the Board of Directors under Investment Cor poration of Pakistan Ordinance, 1966, and I am inclined to agree with the submission of Mr. Ali Amjad that on the coming into force of the Second age Commission's Award, the Service Regulations of the

1. C. P., which may be described as in a state of suspended animation due to the Report of the First Commission were revived and came into force again. It was, however, strongly urged by Mr. Rizvi that as the said Regulations had ceased to exist on the coming into force of the Report of the First; Commission, they were not in force at the time when the Award of the' Second Commission came into force and consequently the recommenda tions of the Award of the Second Commission did not revive them. I find no force in this contention. The Award of Wage Commission in this behalf is quite clear and requires the financial institutions having their own Service Rules under their respective Charters to follow the same. The respondent Corporation was thus bound to follow, on the coming into force of the Award of the Second Commission, the Service Regulations of 1964. I have already shown that these Regulations require the giving of 2 notices and since one of the required notices has not been given by the appellant the acceptance of his resignation by the respondent Corporation in my opinion, would be invalid.

5. For the reasons discussed by me above, I would set aside the decision of the learned Labour Court and would direct the respondent Corporation to re‑instate the appellant forthwith. There remains the question of claim of back benefits. The conduct of the appellant does not appear to me tree from blame. On the one hand, in his application, dated 20th January, 1981 he had in unambiguous words indicated his decision to resign from the employment of the respondent Corporation on 27th January, 1981 and on the other hand, on 26th January, 1981 he had written a letter to the respondent Corporation requesting for leave on the basis of the medical certificate from the authorized Medical Officer of the respondent Corporation recommending the appellant leave upto 16th February, 1981. Furthermore, upto the date when he received the order, dated 9th February, 1981 from the respondent Corporation informing him that his resignation, had been accepted with effect from 7th January. 1981 and that he was required to surrender 22 day's pay in lieu of the short notice, he neither withdrew his intended application for resignation nor informed the respondent Corporation that he desired to continue in its employment. Finally neither in his grievance notice, dated 16th February, 1981 nor in his grievance petition, the appellant has come out frankly with the story that be had, on 20th January, 1981 submitted an application intimating that he had decided to resign with effect from 27th January, 1981. In view of all these circumstances, I am of the view that the appellant is not entitled to any back benefits. I would, therefore, reject the claim of back benefits. Order accordingly.