Find a Lawyer

1985 P L C 244(2)

Appeal No. R. Y. Khan 134 of 1984, decided on 22nd May, 1984.

‑‑‑S.39(1)(c) & (d)‑‑Benefits under a settlement‑‑Section 39 does not fix any date or period for which workmen can claim benefit of settle ment‑‑Settlement providing admissibility of benefits to workers in employment on (late of signing settlement‑‑Worker having resigned and in receipt of letter of acceptance of resignation prior to date of settlement, held, not entitled to its benefits.

1980 P L C 124 and 1978 P L C 105 held not applicable.

‑‑‑Resignation‑‑Comes into effect against resigning worker when it reaches employer and it is not necessary that should be accepted‑ Employer has discretion to accept or refuse resignation but so far as worker is concerned resignation becomes effective as soon as it reaches employer‑‑No provision in law that services stand terminated on date when worker accepts termination order‑‑Reciprocally there can be no condition that a resignation becomes effective on date it is accepted by employer‑‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O.10(1).

Naeem Bokhari for Appellant.

Malik Suleman for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 15^th May, 1984.

The present appeal is directed against the decision, dated 10‑3‑1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur, accepting the grievance petition of the respondent holding that he is entitled to the benefits of the settlement, dated 17‑8‑1983 and directing the appellant to pay the benefits to the respondent. The respondent has filed cross‑objections for claiming re‑instatement in service with full back benefits. The cross‑objections are being disposed of alongwith the appeal.

The respondent resigned on 5‑8‑1983 vide his resignation, Exh. P.2, which was accepted on 9‑8‑1983 and the respondent was informed on 11‑8‑1983, on 29‑9‑1983, the respondent made a request, Exh. P.3, for the withdrawal of the resignation that it was not given voluntarily but was the result of coercion and compulsion. Before that, the respondent had collected the dues amounting to RS.34,016.65 on 25‑8‑1983. He received bonus of 1981 vide Exh. R.2 under protest. On 17‑8‑1983, a settlement, copy of which is Exh. P.5, was signed between the management and C.B.A. Union and according to the note given under clause 7.18, only those employees could take benefit of the settlement who were in employment on the date on which the settlement was signed. The learned lower Court has applied section 39(d) of the I.R.O. for allowing benefits of the settlement to the respondent.

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that clause (d) of section 39 of I.R.O. makes provisions to bind the workers by the settlement and does not provide that they are entitled to the benefits. This is true that section referred to above deals with the point as to upon whom the settlement is binding and does not deal with subject of entitlement but at the same time it does not say that A the workers are not entitled to the benefits of such a settlement. Anyhow, as the section does not fix any date or period or any other condition under which the workers can claim benefits of the settlement,) therefore, the section is not relevant to the point in issue. The settlement itself provides that only those employees will be benefited by the settlement who were in the employment on the date on which the settlement was signed. Since the respondent was not in service and had prior to that resigned, he was not entitled to its benefits. This is noteworthy that the resignation had been accepted before the settlement was executed. The orders of acceptance of resignation also were received by the respondent before the date of the execution of the settlement. No doubt, the respondent applied for the withdrawal of the resignation but the prayer was not accepted. So far as the person giving resignation is concerned, resignation comes effective against him on the date it is received by the employer and it is not necessary that it should be accepted. Order 10(1) does not provide any condition of acceptance of the resignation. The said order deals with the termination of the service al the instance of the employer and likewise, termination of the service at the instance of the employee. Since, there is no provision that the service stands terminated on the date on which the employee accepts the order of termination, reciprocally, there can be no condition that resignation becomes effective on the date it has been accepted by the employer. No doubt, it is the discretion of employer to refuse or to accept the resignation, but so far as the worker is concerned, the resignation becomes effective as soon as it reaches the employer. The case of the appellant is such stronger footing because the respondent applied to withdraw the resignation after it was accepted.

It has also been argued on behalf of the appellant that since the respondent received the benefits of the termination of service, he could not ask for the withdrawal of the resignation. This argument does not appear to have any force. The break‑up of the benefits are not given in Exh. R.1. It, therefore, cannot be said that any such amount is included which may debar the respondent from challenging the resignation or for asking for its withdrawal. Bonus for 1981 amounting to Rs. 3,528 Exh. R.2, received by the respondent under protest. However, this protest does not show whether the protest was made on account of inadequacy of the bonus or for some other reason. No doubt, so far, Exh. P.1 is concerned, no protest was recorded but as the break‑up is not given, it did not effect any estoppel. The learner counsel for the respondent has cited 1980 P L C 124 in which section 39(1), clauses (c) and (d) were applied. Attention of his Lordship was not drawn to the fact that the question of entitlement to take benefit of settlement was not involved but only provision is that the settlement will be binding upon the workers who were in service on the date on which the dispute that culminated in the settlement, arose. The same may be said with regard to 1978 P L C 105. The said rulings are therefore, not helpful to the respondent.

The cross‑objections are without force inasmuch as the respondent was not entitled to withdraw the resignation after it had been accepted and the order of accepting conveyed to him. He also failed to establish that in reality he tendered his resignation under any coercion or compulsion. The' learned lower Court has held that the resignation was quite legal.

As a result, the appeal is accepted and dismissing the cross- objections, the impugned petition of the respondent is dismissed.

A. E.

Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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