1982 PLP 164 (PLC)

The sole issue which falls to be considered in this appeal against the decision of the learned IVth Labour Court, given on 16th May, 1981, is whether the appellant was unlawfully locked out and his services were illegally terminated by the respondent‑Company or whether he had him self resigned and his resignation had been duly accepted by the Manage ment and the acceptance communicated to the appellant. The learned Labour Court in the impugned decision has held that there was a strike by the workmen in the respondent mills on 13th and 14th May, 1980, by reason of some grievance which the workmen had against the Jobbers and Spinning Masters in the Mills and in consequence of that grievance a large number of workmen, including the appellant had resigned and their resignations were duly accepted by the mills.

2. Mr. Mirza Mohammad Kazim, the learned counsel for the appel lant, has submitted that the alleged resignation application, which was claimed to bear the thumb‑impression of the appellant, was sent for comparison to the Finger Print Expert who has opined that the thumb impression on the document is not fit for comparison. The learned counsel accordingly claimed that there was no tangible evidence to show that the appellant had resigned. Further according to him since the respondent mills had failed to establish that the appellant had resigned, the alleged letter of acceptance of resignation, which according to the evidence of the Finger Prints Expert bears the thumb‑impression of the appellant in acknowledgment of having been intimated the acceptance of the Resignation has no significance and cannot be taken into conside ration. On the other hand, it was contended by Mr. Abdul Hafeez, the learned Representative of the respondent mills that though the Finger Prints Expert was unable to give any definite opinion in regard to the thumb impression on the resignation application, there was strong independent evidence to establish that the appellant had in fact resigned. The learned Representative invited my attention to the evidence of Mr. Ali Anwar Ghangro, Assistant Director (Conciliation), and Karachi. This witness has testified that as there was a strike in the respondent mills, he had visited the said mills on 13thMay, 1980, as well as on 14thMay, 1980, under the instruction of his Joint Director. He has further testified that on 14thMay, 1980, about 300 workmen in the respondent mills had tendered their resignations which were dully accepted by the Management and the workmen were paid their dues. On being shown the resignation application of the appellant and the letter of acceptance of the resignation, he stated that both the resignation application as well as the acceptance of the resignation were thumb‑marked by the appellant in his presence and that he had countersigned the same as also the resignation applications and the acceptance of the resignations by the, other striking Workmen. I have examined the resignation application as well as the acceptance of the resignation application by the appellant and find that they do bear the signatures of the Assistant Director (Labour) in token of the same having been thumb‑marked by the workman concerned in his presence. His evidence was sought to be assailed by Mr. Mirza Mohammad Kazim on the grounds firstly, that the witness admittedly did not know the appellant previously, and that secondly, though the witness had testified that the striking workmen whose service were terminated were paid their dues, the appellant admittedly has not been paid his dues. In my opinion these 2 circumstances do not materially detract from his evidence. The witness admittedly is a disinterested person who had gone to the mills in connection with his official duties. Under the thumb impression of the appellant in the resignation application, there is not only his name but also his Card number. The witness, therefore, had countersigned the resignation of the person whose name was Mohammad Rasool and having the Card number of the appellant. These circum stances taking together with the established fact that the acceptance of the resignation not only bears the thumb‑impression of the appellant but also the countersignature of the Assistant Director (Labour), clearly establish that the appellant had resigned, that his resignation had been duly accepted and the acceptance was communicated to him and that the contention of the appellant that he had not resigned is without substance. The mere fact that the appellant was not paid his dues, although it is claimed by the Assistant Director (Labour) that the work men whose services were terminated were paid their dues, does not detract from the evidence and clearly establishes that the appellant had resigned, for it is possible that some of the workmen may not have received their dues at the time of acceptance of their resignations. The appellant has failed to establish why and under what circumstances he had appended his thumb‑impression on the acceptance of his resignation., If he had not resigned, as claimed by him, he would certainly have protested against signing acceptance of the resignation. The fact that he had not protested clearly establishes that he had resigned.

3. For the foregoing reasons, I would concur in the view of the learned Labour Court and would dismiss the appeal. Appeal dismissed,