Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. GA‑113 of 1982, decided on 7th June, 1983.

‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 37‑ Grievance petition against alleged wrongful termination of service ‑ Petition resisted on plea that workman had voluntarily resigned ‑Such plea not proved by comparison of signatures‑Petition, in circumstances, held, rightly accepted by Labour Court awarding reinstatement with back benefits.

A. R. Sheikh for Appellant.

Sardar Muhammad Adib for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 29th May, 1983.

The appeal captioned above is directed against the decision dated 7th February, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Offcer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala, whereby the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.

2. The respondent was a nuliman. According to him, his services were orally terminated on 28th June, 1981 but the case of the appellant was that the respondent had tendered resignation Exh. R. 1 and that he finally settled his accounts. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that at the time the respondent had given resignation, only 16 workers were working as stated by R. W. 1, so Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is not applicable. No such plea was raised in the written statement. The objection raised in the written statement is that there was no right guaranteed to the respondent, he, therefore, could not come to the Labour Court. It was also contended that since the respondent had given resignation and settled his accounts, his case fell outside the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. The objection that there was no right guaranteed to the respondent did not mean that Standing Orders Ordinance was not applicable. If the number of workers was in reality less than 20, expressly such an objection should have been raised, so that the respondent could have met this objection by producing cogent evidence. The respon dent could not have come to know what was in the mind of the appellant When R. W. 1 said that number of workers was 16, the respondent had already closed his case and thus was not in a position to meet this objec tion by producing evidence.

3. So far as resignation is concerned, no cogent evidence was given to prove the same. The respondent had in his cross‑examination denied his signatures on Exhs. R. t to R. 3, therefore, the said three docu ments should have been proved by the evidence of the persons in whose presence he had executed the same or comparison of the disputed signatures should have been got made with admitted signatures available with the appellant. The respondent while receiving his pay must have been putting signatures on the pay register. He must have applied for leave at any time. So if he in reality signed the resignation, comparison with the signatures appearing on it with the signatures appearing on the pay register, leave applications and attendance register etc., could have been made. The solitary witness R. W. 1 did not say that the respondent had execu ted Exhs. R. I to R. 3 in his presence. He simply said that the resigna tion Exh. R. 1 was given by the respondent, So the execution of the resignation and other documents does not stand proved and they could not be used against the respondent. In the above discussed circumstances the learned lower Court was justified in accepting the grievance petition of the respondent and directing his reinstatement in service with back benefits.

4. As a result of what has not been said above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss the same. .

A. E. 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.