Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. QSA‑624 of 1984, decided on 28^th November, 1984.

‑‑‑Ss.25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Grievance petition for re‑instatement‑‑Petitioner alleged to have resigned under coercion‑‑Story of alleged taking forcible resignation neither plausible nor corroborated by any evidence except bare statement of petitioner‑‑Service dues received without protest‑ Alleged incident of coercion by beating not reported to police‑‑Labour Court, in circumstances, held, rightly disbelieved solitary statement of petitioner Dismissal of grievance petition by Labour Court upheld by Appellate Tribunal.

Pervez Inayat Malik for Appellant.

Date of hearing: 26th November, 1984.

The decision, dated 19‑8‑1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab. Labour Court No.3, Lahore at Ferozewala has been challenged in this appeal, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re‑instatement in service was dismissed.

2. The appellant was an Electrician. His services came to an end on 9‑1‑1984 on account of the acceptance of his resignation. He after service of grievance notice, challenged the order of acceptance of the resignation on the plea that it was got executed from him by force, after being given a beating in the Labour Office. The appellant did not examine any witness in support of his contention, except appearing himself as his own witness. The ground given by the appellant for taking from him resignation forcibly is that one Ahmad Din owed Rs. 5,400 to him and on his demand he threatened to get him expelled from the Mills and that on the same day the resignation was got executed from him by giving him beating. The solitary statement of the appellant about the alleged highhandedness is not sufficient. Two incidents, according to him, took place on 9‑1‑1984 but in support of none he could produce any witness who could have corroborated him. No writing of the advance of Rs. 5,400 to Ahmad Din was produced by him. In his application Exh. P. 2 he does not speak of the execution 'of resignation by force, nor he spoke of the loan of Rs. 5,400 alleged to be due to him from Ahmad Din. It was suggested to him in cross‑examination that he had illicit connection with the wife of Ahmad Din and was caught red‑handed on the same day and that for that reason he executed resignation. No doubt, he denied the suggestion but when the reason given by him is not plausible, it may be that since he was caught red‑handed so he thought it difficult to remain in the Mills, and therefore he resigned of his own accord. Such a scandal is never made falsely. However, nothing can be definitely said in this respect but since the reason given by the appellant is not plausible and believable, it cannot be said that the resignation was not his spontaneous act. He admits that he after that received Rs.8,488.37 as his dues. If by force resignation had been taken from him, he would not have received the service benefits or had recorded his protest. R.W.1 to whom the resignation was tendered, rebuts the uncorroborated statement of the appellant about the coercion. He admittedly did not report the matter to the Police. If he had been beaten up and resignation had been obtained from him forcibly he would have reported the incident to the Police and also would have got himself medically examined. This further shows that he has come forward with a concocted story of obtaining resignation from him by coercion. The learned Court, therefore, right disbelieved his solitary statement and dismissed his petition.

3. As a result, the appeal has no merits and thus is hereby dismissed in limine.

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.