Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑592 of 1980, heard on 17th February, 1981.

‑‑Resignation not withdrawn‑Acceptance within competence of Management‑Resignation tendered accepted by Management Grievance petition for re‑instatement, in circumstances, held, rightly rejected‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 25‑A.

Mazhar Ali Chohan for Appellant.

Sirajul Haq Qureshi for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 17th February, 1981.

The appellant was employed as a bus Conductor in the respondent Corporation. According to the said Corporation, the appellant had tendered his resignation on 25th February, 1980 as a protest against the transfer of some bus Conductors from Malir to other stations. This resigna tion was accepted by he respondent‑Corporation on 28th February, 1980. The appellant challenged the acceptance of his resignation by way of a grievance petition filed before the learned Fourth Labour Court which has dismissed the same by the impugned decision, given on 28th July, 1980. The appellant has, accordingly, come up in appeal to this Tribunal.

2. Mr. Mazhar Ali Chohan, the learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the impugned decision of the learned Labour Court on the grounds‑

(i) that the appellant had never submitted his resignation ; and

(ii) that in any case the appellant had withdrawn his resignation on 25th February, 1980 much before its acceptance, and, therefore, there was no resignation application which could have been accepted by the respondent‑Corporation.

3. Now as regards the first contention of Mr. Chohan, although the appellant had alleged that at no time he had tendered his resignation and has tried to show that his signatures were taken on a blank piece of paper by some disgruntled employees of the respondent‑Corporation, the District Manager, Mr. M. A. Qureshi, has categorically stated that the appellant had tendered his resignation in person to him. The District Manager's version stands corroborated by the resignation application, Although it is not in the hand of the appellant, but it clearly bears the signatures of the appellant. I have compared the signatures on the resignation application with the admitted signatures of the appellant and am satisfied that they tally. I am, therefore, in agreement with the view taken by the learned Labour Court that the appellant had tendered his resignation from service.

4. In support of his second contention the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Abdul Rashid v. Karachi Transport Corporation, decided on 12th February, 1981. In that case the resignation tendered by the bus Conductor was withdrawn by him before it was accepted by the authority and consequently this Tribunal took the view that the resignation having been withdrawn there was no resignation which could be accepted. In the instant case, the resignation has not been withdrawn by the appellant. All that he has written on the back of his resignation application is as follows ‑‑

The above endorsement may be considered as an admission of his guilt on the part of the appellant and requesting for forgiveness and cannot be construed as withdrawal of the resignation. The respondent‑Corpora tion was, therefore, entitled to accept the appellant's resignation, as it has done, and not take any further proceedings against him.

5. For the reasons discussed by me above, I would concur in the view taken by the learned Labour Court and dismiss the appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.