1981 PLP 634 (PLC(CS))

Ali Ahmad for Appellants. Date of haring: 15th January, 1981. The 4 appellants, who were employed in the respondent establishment, filed separate grievance petitions before the learned IIIrd Labour Court, alleging that they bad been wrongfully dismissed from service by the respondent establishment, by oral orders, and accordingly prayed for reinstatement in service with full back benefits. The learned Labour Court has dismissed their grievance petitions by a common decision holding that appellant Muhammad Faiyaz and Muhammad Riaz had voluntarily tendered their resignations ,which had been duly accepted by the respondent establishment, while respondents, Nazar Muhammad and Shamim Ahmad, who were temporary workmen, had collected their dues from the respondent‑establishment in full and final settlement and hence had ceased to be aggrieved workmen. The findings of the learned Labour Court are based upon the documentary evidence plus the oral testimony of the respondent establishment's witness, Noor Islam, tendered before it.

2. Now, as regards the cases of appellants Muhammad Faiyaz and Muhammad Riaz, the learned Labour Court relied, firstly, upon the written resignations, said to have been given by them to the respondent Man agement, which were accepted on 7th April, 1980 and 8th June, 1980 res pectively. The learned Labour Court compared the signatures on these 2 documents with the respective signatures of the appellants, Muhammad Faiyaz and Muhammad Riaz, taken in Court and also appearing on the documents admittedly bearing their signatures and came to the conclusion that they tallied. I have myself compared the signature on the 2 resigna tion applications with the respective signatures of the 2 appellants on the 2 admitted documents and would concur in the view taken by the learned Labour Court. In addition to these resignation applications, there are not only vouchers evidencing full payment having been made to the 2 appellants but further their separate acknowledgments to the effect that they had received their dues in full and final settlement. I have compared the signatures of the above 2 appellants on these vouchers and acknow ledgments with their signatures on the admitted documents and am satis fied that they tally. I am, therefore, in agreement with the view taken by the learned Labour Court that not only these 2 appellants had tendered their resignations, which were duly accepted but further they have been paid their dues in full and final settlement and have acknowledged them under their signatures.

3. As regards appellant Nazar Muhammad, it appears from his letter of appointment that he was employed by the respondent‑establishment with effect from 3rd August, 1980, and his services were terminated 20 days later, by the order, dated 23rd August, 1980. He was thus temporary worker, not entitled to notice. Both the letter of appointment and the letter of termination of his services bear not only the signatures but also the thumb impressions of appellant Nazar Muhammad, The learned Labour Court compared the signatures of appellant Nazar Muhammad on these 2 documents with the signatures of Nazar Muhammad, taken by it in Court and also appearing on the admitted documents and came to the conclusion that they tallied. I have also compared the signa tures of Nazar Muhammad on these documents and have come to a similar conclusion. Additionally, there is a voucher, dated 23rd August, 1980, showing that are amount of Rs. 218.44 had been paid to this appel lant in full and final settlement of his dues. Finally, there is an acknow ledgment by appellant Nazar Muhammad to the effect that he had received his dues in full and final settlement. Both these documents. bear not only the signatures but also the thumb impressions of the appellant. I have compared the signatures on these documents with the admitted signatures of the appellant and have come to the conclusion that they tally. It is thus established that not only appellant Nazar Muhammad was a temporary employee but his services were terminated by a written order and further he has received his dues in full and final settlement.

4. As regards appellant Shamim Ahmad, though his letter of appointment has not been produced, it appears from the order, dated 23rd August, 1980, terminating his services, that he was appointed with effect from 7th August, 1980. He too thus appears to have been a temporary workman. The order terminating his services, as in the case of appellant Nazar Muhammad, bears not only the thumb impression but also the signature of appellant Shamim Ahmad. Additionally, there is a voucher showing payment of an amount of Rs. 191.75 to this appellant in full and final settlement of his dues. Finally, there is an acknowledgment by this appellant that he has received his dues in full and final settlement. All these 3 documents not only bear the thumb impressions but also the signatures of appellant Shamim Ahmad. The learned Labour Court compared the signatures on the documents with the admitted signatures of the appellant Shamim Ahmad and came to the conclusion that they tally. Upon comparison of the appellant's signa tures on these documents. I have reached the same conclusion. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the services of appellant Shamim Ahmad .e were terminated in accordance with law and in any case having received his dues in full and final settlement, he has ceased to be an aggrieved worker.

5. For the reasons discussed by me above, I find no merit in any of these appeals and accordingly dismiss the same in limine. Appeal dismissed.