Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Appeal No. HYD‑216 of 1979, heard on 29th July, 1979.
‑‑ S. 25‑A‑Petition against termination of service‑‑Contention that petitioner resigned voluntarily‑Resignation letter in original not, produced‑Photostat copy, held, not admissible in evidence‑ Contention rejected and petition accepted.
Yousuf Khatak's case P L D 1973 S C 160 rel.
G. A. Akhund for Appellant.
Respondent in person.
Date of hearing : 29th July, 1979.
This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Labour Court No. VI, allowing application of the respondent workman, under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, for reinstate ment in service of the appellant with back benefits.
2. The respondent's case before the learned Labour Court was that on 3rd June, 1978, he was called to the office of the appellant, and directed to sign a Final Payment Voucher and take payment for purposes of termination of his services, and on his refusal to do so, he was threatened that his earlier resignation of 1975 would be used of for purposes of termination of his service. It appears that the respondent bad reported this fact with the Dhabeji Police Outpost on the next day of the incident. On the other hand, the case of the appellant is that the respondent had voluntarily submitted his resignation on 12th June, 1978, which was duly accepted and accordingly vouchers for the payment of his dues were made out.
3. The only case of the appellant thus hinges do the alleged resignation which the respondent is said to have submitted on 12th June, 1978. The said resignation, however, has not been brought on the record of the learned Labour Court. I requested Mr. G. A. Akhund the learned Counsel of the appellant to show me the said resignation on the record of the learned Labour Court but he was unable to do so: All that was produced before the learned Labour Court is a Photostat copy of a resignation which bears no date. A photostat copy is not admissible in evidence unless the original has also been produced, which is not the case here. Even if no objection was taken to the production of the photostat copy by the respondent, that does not mean that the photostat copy is admissible in evidence. The said photo copy thus being inadmissible as evidence, cannot be considered as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Yousaf Khatak (P L D 1973 S C 160).
4. As there is no legal evidence to show that the respondent had resigned from the service of the appellant on 12th June, 1978, since the Photostat copy of the alleged resignation is not admissible in evidence, I would dismiss this appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer