1987 PLP 58 (PLC)

In this application under section 25‑A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 Ahmad Hussain has challenged his resignation submitted before the District Manager stating that no resignation was submitted by the applicant Ahmad Hussain but admits that it was written by the clerical staff and, therefore, has no leg al sanction and accordingly the impugned order be set aside.

2. The facts are that on 30th January, 1986 when he came to depot as a conductor Mr. Nawaz Khokhar the Statement Checker, directed him to appear before the District Manager because the bus was out of order.

3. When Ahmad Hussain appeared, no reason was assigned about the defective vehicle, instead‑ asked him to submit the application of resignation. The application was written by Saeed, Stationery Clerk and he was forced to write under compulsion.

4. Respondent has filed legal objections and also the detailed reply stating that resignation was given on the ground of domestic affairs. His record was not satisfactory. He was punished 31 times for committing fraud. The acceptance of the resignation was quite legal for the purpose of dismissal order.

5. The Court has heard Mr. Gul Muhammad Soomro representing the Karachi Transport Corporation, and Mr. M. Latif Saghar representing the applicant. Mr. Saghar is the Advocate of the firm of Ch. Rasheed Ahmed and represents in that capacity. REASONS:

1. Mr. Gul Muhammad Soomro has contended that applicant has admitted that application was presented of resignation and now he has challenged that this resignation was under compulsion.

2. Mr. M. Latif Saghar has contended that assuming the resignation was given, what was the point for the applicant to have offered two witnesses if the resignation was voluntary. Mr. Soomro has also explained that this resignation was given due to domestic affairs and, therefore, no inference can be drawn of the victimization by the District Manager, Mr. Siddiqui.

3. The Court has examined the evidence. Indeed the application of resignation was presented on the record which is signed by 2 persons Ahmad Hussain and Muhammad Saeed Khan one is the applicant and other is Muhammad Saeed attesting the witnesses and also member of the clerical staff of Malir Depot. The signature is not disputed by the applicant himself. He has explained the backgrounds that this compulsion was made on him and, therefore, the resignation was not voluntary resignation to have the force of law. Mr. Ali Ahmad Siddiqui, District Manager in his statement has further disclosed that applicant himself came to his office on 30‑1‑1986 and resigned on the ground that the matter should not proceed further. He has admitted this position that this resignation was written by the member of the clerical staff but he is definite that he did not compel him to resign or force to sign. He has also further explained that whenever any person resigns from the job he confirms through witnesses.

4. After examining the case on merits if the Court proceed to take this view that it is not unusual that some people resign and the resignation accepting authority as a precaution also takes the signature of the witnesses to avoid any unpleasantness least he may not be misunderstood that worker was compelled to resign. If the Court proceeds to take another view that it is also possible that a man who submits the resignation willingly will not ask the witnesses to sign or to present application written by a clerk and then present before the authority. It is no doubt is admitted position that he was facing the charge‑sheet of 17‑12‑1985 which is also on the record and according Mr. Siddiqui, District Manager who has said that if his resignation is accepted he will not proceed the matter further. This can also be one type of argument which is not unusual in the ordinary course of human experience or human dealings of which the Court is also to take the judicial perception in the context of the factual realities.

5. But from this inference this Court is not going to draw conclusion that Ali Ahmad Siddiqui may be wrong that he might have resigned. But at the same time the Court is to take very cautious view of the matter that if a man resigns and again, knocks the door of the Court, A on the evidence of circumstantial nature such, as this, then that resignation cannot be said to be voluntary. The resignation on one hand was written by Clerk Saeed when applicant could write himself. And secondly there was no need of witnesses to attest that application if it was voluntary step, whatever be the state of the mind of the applicant, the Court concludes that this resignation cannot be said to be voluntary by applicant. Though apparently it may look voluntary why the applicant has come before the Court and challenged it in the circumstances as disclosed. The impugned order is set aside. He should go and face the charge‑sheet before the District Manager. Application is allowed accordingly A. A Grievance petition allowed