1993 PLP 564 (PLC(CS))

Date of hearing: 11th March, 1993. This appeal calls in question the order of the Labour Court whereby the petitioner's application for reinstatement was allowed with full back benefits. The circumstances in which this appeal has arisen are as follows:

2. It is alleged that on 22‑11‑1988 the petitioner had appeared before the Senior Laundry Manager and submitted his resignation in writing which was forthwith accepted. The petitioner learning of this had protested and showed ignorance about the whole episode and on 26‑11‑1988 bad sent a letter to the effect that the management wanted to throw him out because of his trade union activities and the tale of his resignation was just a tissue of lies. He had later sent a grievance notice on 18‑1‑1989 and filed the application before the Labour Court.

3. In the written reply all the allegations made were denied and it was also denied that there was any malice involved but he himself had resigned and left the job, of his own free will, and volition. It was also alleged that he was holding a Supervisor's job as Laundry Incharge and therefore the petition did not lie.

4. The Labour Court found the petitioner to be a workman and found that there was no resignation tendered and allowed the petition.

5. Lt.‑Col. (Retd.) Zafar Mustafa admits of hearing that he was the General Se retary. It also appears that at the instance of the union a petition was a little earlier pending before the High Court in which there was a prayer for the holding of a Referendum. It is also an admitted position that his services had been terminated in 1986 and he had been reinstated by the Labour Court in 1987. An appeal had been preferred before the Tribunal but that had been withdrawn by the appellants.

6. The respondent had all along denied that he had resigned. There seems to be no satisfactory explanation as to why he took such a step only to back out within a few days. The forthwith acceptance of the resignation of all the persons, by the Senior Laundry Manager is also rather curious. It is not necessary to expatiate on these matters in detail because the letter of resignation had been sent to Mr. Moladad, the handwriting expert and, for the reasons given by him, he has testified as a Court witness that it does not bear the signature of the respondent.

7. As there is a challenge to the status of the respondent, all that has been said and appears against him is that he was Incharge of the Laundry Section. Even Muhammad Tariq Deen who offered as a witness is the Senior Laundry Manager. There is nothing to show that in 1986‑87 the respondent was holding any other job. He had' come with a petition before the Labour Court which had been decided in his favour and though the appellant had followed it up with an appeal yet the same was withdrawn. I am satisfied that the appellant was then and still remains a workman.

8. The appeal is totally devoid of any merit. I will, therefore, affirm the impugned order and dismiss the appeal. H.B.T./2177/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.