Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. Lhr-563 of 1979, decided on 10^th July, 1982.

---S. 25-A--Appellant resigned from service--Subsequently sought re instatement for re-employment--Accepted re-employment with condition that previous service would not be counted--Claims to be treated in service throughout on analogy of another employee--Held: Appellant having accepted re-employment was estopped from agitating it--After acceptance of resignation his previous service came to an end and could not ask for reinstatement.

Appellant in person.

Humayun Bokhari, A.O. for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 29th June, 1982.

The appeal arises from the decision dated 20‑8‑1979 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.1, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement was dismissed.

2. The appellant was a Junior Cargo Assistant. He on 23‑2‑1970 applied for the post of Commissioned Officer in Education Corps Pakistan Army and was directed to join P.M.A. He, therefore, on 12‑5‑1970 submitted his resignation to the P.I.A. which was accepted and he was relieved on 22‑5‑1970. He was not granted commission in the Army and his services were terminated from there. He applied to the P.I.A. for reinstatement or re‑employment in service. He was consequently re employed vide order, copy of which is Exh.D‑4 dated 26‑1‑1973. It was expressly mentioned in the order of re‑employment that it was not a case of reinstatement and that the previous service with the Corporation would not be counted towards provident fund, gratuity or any other accumulative benefits. It was further written as under: --‑

"If this order is acceptable to you, please report to the P.O.LHE for your medical examination and completion of the employment formalities. "

The appellant joined service. The case of the appellant now is that the period from 23‑7‑1970 to 7‑3‑1973 for which he remained out of service be counted towards his service alongwith the previous period of his service and thus he be treated in service with effect from 26‑6‑1967. The appellant has argued that one other person namely, Haji Alam had also resigned for joining as Commissioned Officer, but could not get the job in the Army and applied for reinstatement to the P.I.A. and he was reinstated, but the appellant, whose case is similar to Haji Alam, was re‑employed and was not reinstated. Obviously this ground does not show that there is any right guaranteed to the appellant by any law, settlement or award. If the respondent had shown favour in the case of Haji Alam and reinstated him, this cannot be a ground for the appellant to ask for his reinstatement and actually he was re employed. It was made very much clear to him by the order of his appointment that his appointment would be re‑employment and not re instatement and that if it was acceptable to him, he may report for duty. The appellant understanding the terms and conditions, accepted his re‑employment, therefore, he now is estopped from agitating that the respondent be directed to convert his re‑employment into re instatement. Since he had resigned and his resignation had been accepted, the previous service came to an end and, therefore, unless the respondent agreed to withdraw the order of the acceptance of his resignation and was inclined to reinstate him, he could not under any law, ask for reinstatements.

3. In the above discussed circumstances, the learned lower court was justified in dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed.

M. I.

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.