1976 PLP 462 (PLC)

This is an appeal against an award of the learned Presiding 0ff"icer of Sind Labour Court No. I, Karachi, dated May 12, 1973, whereby the learned Labour Court dismissed the application filed by the Union under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the Ordinance). It may be at the very outset noted that the application was only for compensation of notice-pay, bonus, gratuity and leave encashment and not for re-instatement. The case of the Appellant Union was that they had given a notice under section 27-A of the Ordin ance, as it stood in January 1971, to the Management. Conciliation proceedings started on 23rd January, 1971. According to the Management, after the failure of conciliation proceedings, a settlement was arrived at on the same date i.e., on 23rd January, 1971, which was signed by many of the workers alongwith the President and the General Secretary of the Union, namely, Shamsuddin and Nizamuddin. The said settlement purported to be a resignation from the workers on payment of their dues. The Union however, served a strike notice on the same date, i.e., on 23rd January, 1971. This resulted into fresh conciliation proceedings, which took place on 28th January, 1971. The conciliation proceedings were adjourned for 29th January, 1971, when the Management produced the so-called settlement dated 23rd January, 1971.

2. The case of the Union was that the workers had not resigned and that the said settlement was a fictitious one. They were made to sign a blank piece of paper. They did not know the contents of the said document. The Management, after tth said settlement, refused to allow the workers to resume the duties. 3, The case of the Management was that they wante to shift their Dry Cleaning Factory from Karachi to Malir The workers demanded extra payment for going to Malir, which the Management was not in a position to accept. This resulted into a settlement between the n3r!ies, with the result that the agreement dated 23rd January 1971 was arrived at and the individual 28 workers also signed separate resignation letters and also a certificate that they had received all their dues from the Management.

4. Mr. Wasi Ahmad, the learned Representative for the appellant, very strenuously contended wet it is very strange that though the proceedings were held before the Conciliator on 23rd January 1971, but the settlement was not produced or signed before him. In the second place, he contended that even if a settlement was arrived at immediately after the failure of the conciliation proceedings, it is strange that on the same date strike notice should have been given to the Management. It is true that the circumstances relied upon by Mr. Wasi Ahmed have raised certain suspicion. Mere doubt, however, cannot take the place of evidence. In the present case, the circumstances, which I would presently mention, are very weighty to brush aside the suspicion that the circuit-stances made out by Mr. Wasi Ahmed have created. In the first place, of the 28 workers, who had resigned, 26 persons did not appear before the learned Labour Court to contest their resignations. It is only the President and the General Secretary of the Union, who have appeared before the Court and filed their affidavits. So far as they are concerned, it would be useful, in order to consider their statements, to produce the relevant portion of the typed copy of the resignation, which is dated 23rd January 1971. It reads as under: "I am tendering my resignation from your service with effect from 4 p m. on 23-1-1971. Please accept the same and oblige. Yours faithfully. Signature Certificate.-I certify that I have received all my dues and I do not have any claim or demand against your company. Signature . 23-1-1971. " S. The letter of resignation, reproduced above, is the same in respect of both Shamsuddin and Nizamuddin. It is noteworthy that Nizamuddin who is Ilk the General Secretary of the Union, has signed at both the places, i.e. tendering his resignation and certifying that no claim was outstanding against the Company, in English, I am not prepared to believe that having signed the typed copy of the resignation and the certificate in English, Nizamuddin did not know the contents of the letter, which he was signing. Moreover, it is not believable that he had signed at two places on a blank sheet of paper. He has not explained anywhere as to why he had signed at two places without asking the Management as to why he was being made to sign blank paper at two places. In fact, Nizamuddin admitted to have received certain amount. He admits in cross-examination to have received 40 days wages amounting to Rs. 227.74. Similarly, Shamsuddin has also signed the letter of resignation and the certificate at two places. He admitted to have received Rs. 492.00 including earned wages. In these circumstances, I am inclined to accept the version of the Management that the President and the General Secretary of the Union wanted to blackmail the Management by initiating the proceedings under section 34 of the Ordinance. In this connection, it may also b mentioned that it had come to the knowledge of the President and the General Secretary of the Union on 23rd January 1971, that there existed a document of the same date, which purported to be their resignation. They sat quiet till 4th March 1971, when they made the application giving rise to A the impugned order. There is nothing in the application to explain this long delay. Shamsuddin however, in his cross-examination stated that he had fallen ill. This is no explanation for delay, because the application was filed by the General Secretary of the Union and not by Shamsuddin. This delay over a month, in the circumstances of the present case, throws great doubt on the bona fide of the President and the General Secretary of the Union. In these circumstances, I do not see any reason to take a different view than what has been taken by the learned Labour Court. The appeal is dismissed.