1982 PLP 971 (PLC(CS))

‑‑S. 25.A‑Grievance petition‑Aggrieved person‑Person resigning voluntarily‑Not an aggrieved person to claim re‑instatement‑ Petitioner alleging to have been made forcibly to sign on blank paper and vouchers of reciept for full and final payment of dues Management contending that he had voluntarily resigned and then received dues‑Evidence supporting contention of manage ment and no evidence adduced by petitioner in support of his plea‑Grievance petition, in circumstances, held, rightly rejected as a person having voluntarily resigning could not be considered as an aggrieved person. Ali Muhammad for Appellant. Date of hearing, 11th May, 1981. This appeal arises out of a grievance petition filed by the appellant workman, on 28th February, 1981, before the learned IIIrd Labour Court, Karachi alleging that on 14th January, 1981, the respondent company had turned him out of their establishment after their men had forcibly obtained his signatures on a voucher and a blank paper. The respondent company resisted the grievance petition on the ground that the appellant had quarelled with the shift incharge, Abdul Wahid, on 14th January, 1981 and on that account he voluntarily relinquished his job with the company and in the presence of witnesses, namely Manager Hashir Ahmed and Accountant Shaukat Jenani, signed the payment voucher and the printed full and final settlement. Both these witnesses were examined by the respondent company before the learned Labour Court. They fully supported the contention of the company that the appellant had voluntarily resigned and been paid his dues in full and final settlement of all his claim. The voucher and the acknowledgment receipt were also produced by the company at the trial. Both these documents bear the signatures of the appellant on revenue stamps and have been attested by Manager Bashir Ahmed and Accountant Shaukat Jenani. The respondent company also examined two other witnesses, Taj Malook and office peon Juma Khan. Relying on this evidence, the learned Labour Court has dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant. Aggrieved by this decision the appellant has come up in appeal to this tribunal.

2. The sole ground on which Mr. Ali Ahmed, the learned counsel of the appellant, sought to assail the decision of the learned Labour Court was that it had misappreciated the evidence in the case and had wrongly rejected the plea of the appellant that he had signed the payment voucher and acknowledgment receipt under duress. The evidence in support of this plea consists of the solitary word of the appellant and the applications made by him in this behalf to the Directorate of Labour and the Police. If the appellant had been forcibly made to sign a blank voucher or a blank sheet of paper in the factory premises and thereafter was turned out of the factory, it should not have been difficult for him to examine some of the workmen in support of his contention. However, not one workman or other witness has been examined by the appellant in this behalf. Furthermore, according to the evidence given by the appellant before the learned Labour Court, he had signed on a blank piece of paper. This was also his contention in his grievance petition. However, the acknowledgment receipt is a printed document in which only certain particulars have been filled. It is not possible to describe this document, even if the blanks therein are not filled, as a blank piece of paper.

3. Furthermore, the appellant himself, in his evidence before the learned Labour Court. has admitted that he had signed this document of his own accord. It is, therefore, difficult to take the word of the appellant seriously when he claims that he has signed a blank sheet of paper. As regards the voucher, it shows that the appellant had been paid a total sum of Ps. 2,535, which included his salary from Ist January, 1981 to 14th January, 1981, his gratuity, notice pay and ex gratin payment. As already stated, the respondent company examined before the learned Labour Court their Manager Bashir Ahmad and Accountant Shaukat Jenani. Both of them testified that the appellant had voluntarily reques ted to be relieved of his job and been paid his dues in full and final settle ment. Both these witnesses denied that these 2 documents were forged. No question was even suggested to either of these witnesses that the appellant had been forced to sign any paper or had been forcibly turned out of the factory. The evidence of the other 2 witnesses examined by the company, Taj Malook and peon Juma Khan, lend support to the other evidence adduce to this behalf by the respondent company, Taj Malook is a workman in the respondent company and his evidence is to effect that the appellant on the day in question had quarrelled with the shift incharge and he had subsequently informed him that he had collected all his dues. The evidence of peon Juma Khan is to the effect that the appellant had received his dues, amounting to Rs.2,535, in his presence and had signed the payment voucher and the acknowledgment receipt. No serious consideration can be paid to the complaints made by the appellant either to the police or to the Directorate of Labour Welfare as apart from the fact that to evidence had been adduced by him in support of his conten tion that he had been forced to sign a payment voucher or a blank sheet of paper, the complaints to the authorities are dated 18th January, 1981, I.e., after 4 days as the date of the alleged incident and appear to have been sent to the authorities on or after 20th January, 1981. Possibility the appellant had second thoughts about his resignation or may have been advised by some persons to make these complaints. In any case, there appears to be no substance in the same. 4. 1 have carefully considered the evidence in the case and am satisfied that the appellant had voluntarily resigned and had received hi dues in full and final settlement. He thus cannot be considered to be an aggrieved person. I would accordingly uphold the decision of the learned Labour Court and would dismiss the appeal in limine.