1982 PLP 82 (PLC)

S. 25-A-Grievance petition-Remedy of re-instatement against alleged illegal termination of service-Evidence establishing fact pf voluntary resignation and acceptance thereof-Mere non-receipt of dues, held, would not change position-Grievance petition, in circumstances, held, rightly rejected. Mirza Muhammad Kazim for Appellant. Date of hearing: 20thMay, 1981. DECISION The appellant, who was employed as a double sider in the respondent. Company, filed a grievance petition before the learned Fourth Labour Court on 28th July, 1980, alleging that his services had been illegally terminated by the respondent-Company and he had been driven out by force from the premises of the appellant-Company. The respondent Company resisted the appellant's grievance petition on the ground that the appellant had tendered his resignation in protest against the employment of a new spinning master and his resignation was accepted by the Company on 14th May, 1980, the very day that the appellant had submitted his resignation. The learned Labour Court has taken the view that the appellant had voluntarily resigned and consequently has dismissed his grievance petition. In coming to this decision the learned Labour Court has relied mainly upon, firstly, the resignation application of the appellant, secondly, the acceptance of his resignation, which bears the signature of the appellant in token of his having received a copy of the acceptance and, thirdly, the evidence of Mr. Ali Anwar Ghangro, Assistant Director, Labour Welfare in whose presence the appellant had tendered his resigna tion and who had appended his signature to resignation application in token of the same having been made in his presence. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned Labour Court the appellant has come up in appeal to this tribunal. 2. The next material evidence in the case is that of Assistant Director, Labour Welfare. Mr. Ali Ghangro, who was examined before the learned Labour Court. He has testified that on 13th Iv4ay, 1980, he had visited the Globe Textile Mills as there was strike in the said Mills. According to him he found that the workers of the Ring Department were sitting outside the Department. On his questioning them as to why they were not performing their duties they informed him that they had some grievance against the jobbers and the spinning master, Ishrat Ali Mr. Ghangro has further` testified that he advised them to resume their duties and to take up their grievance according to law but the workers refused to listen to him. He further stated that he informed the Joint Director Labour Welfare, on telephone of the situation, who desired him to visit the Mills again and to try to persuade the workers to resume their duties Mr. Ghangro has added that on 14th May, 1980, he again visited the mills and tried to persuade the workers to resume their duties but they refused to do so on the ground that either they should remain or spinning master Ishrat Ali should remain. According to him, three hundred of the workers expressed a desire to resign and in his presence such persons Including the appellant, tendered their resignations and he had counter signed the resignation of this appellant in token of having been made in his presence. Mr. Ghangro is an independent witness and there is no reason to disbelieve his version, of the incident. Furthermore his version finds strong support from the handwritten resignation of the appellant, which not only bears the signature of the appellant but also has been countersigned by Mr. Ghangro. Further support to the testimony of Mr. Ghangro is provided by the letter, dated 14thMay, 1980, accepting the resignation of the appellant. This letter also bears the signature of the appellant in token of his having received a copy of the acceptance. 3. Mr. Mirza Muhammad Kazim the learned counsel for the appel lant, submitted that if the appellant had resigned, as has been alleged; by the respondent-Company and Mr. Ghangro the appellant, like other workmen, would have taken his dues but the admitted position is that he has not collected his dues. The mere fact that the appellant had not so far collected his dues does not alter the very strong evidence brought on record establishing that he had, in fact resigned. It was next sought to be argued by Mr. Muhammad Kazim that the real reason for terminating the services of the appellant was the strike in the respondent establishment and the termination was engineered with the assistance of Mr. Ghangro through the so-called resignation. I find no force in this contention. In the first place, Mr. Ghangro has admitted that there was a strike in the respondent establishment from 13th May, 1980. The resignation by the appellant was tendered on 14thMay, 1980 alongwith certain other work men in protest to the appointment of new spinning master, Ishrat Ali. As already discussed, not only does the resignation application of the appel lant bear the signature of the appellant but it was also countersigned by Mr. Ghangro to whose presence resignation was tendered. Furthermore even the letter accepting the resignation was signed by the appellant in token of his having received a copy thereof. 4. For the reasons discussed by me above, I am satisfied that the appellant had voluntarily tendered his resignation which resignation was accepted and that there is no force in his contention that his services were illegally terminated. 1_ would, accordingly, dismiss this appeal in limini. Appeal dismissed.