2016 PLP 52 (PLC)

ALI SAIN DINO METLO, MEMBER.

The appellant has challenged order dated 21st November, 2011, of the Sindh Labour Court No.6, Hyderabad, dismissing his grievance application for conversion of his dismissal from service into acceptance of his resignation.

2. Briefly, the facts are that the appellant, who was appointed as Customer Service (Trainee) in Khushali Bank Limited on 27th March, 2006, tendered his resignation on 16th May, 2009, as he had been offered a better job.

3. The bank, instead of accepting resignation of the appellant, dismissed him from service on the ground that he had resigned without giving one month's prior notice.

4. According to clause 10 of the Employment Contract, the bank could terminate services of the appellant at any time subject to one month's prior notice or payment of salary in lieu thereof and according to clause 11, the appellant could resign at any time subject to one month's prior notice.

5. The Labour Court, while holding the appellant to be a workman within the meaning of Section 2(i) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, upheld appellant's dismissal for the same reason i.e. tendering resignation without one month's prior notice.

6. The orders of the bank and the Labour Court are not sustainable. First, the Employment Contract does not provide consequence of not giving one month's prior notice and, therefore, the condition of notice cannot be treated as mandatory. Second, according to Standing Order 15(4), a workman can be dismissed only on proof of charge of misconduct and want of one month's prior notice does not come within the purview of misconduct. Third, under Article 11 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, forced labour is prohibited and no person can be compelled to perform compulsory service unless required so by law.

7. Refusal to accept resignation of the appellant without any charge of misconduct against him amounts to forcing him to do compulsory service. No law required the appellant to do service of the bank compulsorily.

8. The bank has not claimed that it had suffered any loss due to appellant's resignation without one month's prior notice. As a matter of fact, at the time of tendering his resignation, the appellant had no portfolio. The immediate officer of the appellant i.e. the manager of the concerned branch of the bank had also no objection on the resignation of the appellant and had recommended it for acceptance.

9. While tendering his resignation, the appellant had disclosed the reason for resignation i.e. offer of a better job. The appellant was not required to disclose the reason. It appears that he disclosed the reason thinking that the boss will be happy on coming to know that his subordinate had been offered a better job. He seems to have misunderstood his boss, whose sadism came in his way inspite of the fact that the appellant had offered to refund salary of one month in lieu of the notice. The act of the bank in not accepting the resignation of the appellant and dismissing him from service is illegal and mala fide designed to damage his future career. The Labour Court grossly erred in not accepting the appellant's grievance application. Accordingly, the order of the Labour Court is set aside, the appeal and consequently the grievance application of the appellant are allowed and the order of the bank dismissing the appellant from service is converted into acceptance of his resignation. HBT/26/SLT Appeal allowed.