Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. HYD‑11 of 1983, heard on 16th April, 1985.

‑‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑Grievance petition for re‑instatement‑Plea in written statement of employer that petitioner resigned voluntarily and received dues in full and final settlement ‑ Resignation disputed‑Report of Handwriting Expert mentioning that signatures on resignation were of petitioner‑Signatures of petitioner compared by naked eye with those on grievance petition and affidavit and appearing similar‑Contention that had petitioner resigned volun tarily he would not have agitated his grievance petition‑Explanation that due to .faction of Union leaders petitioners took stand that he did not resign‑Labour Court finding explanation as plausible and believing that petitioner had resigned‑Order of Labour Court dismissing grievance petition, in circumstances, upheld by Appellate Tribunal.

Bashir Awan for Appellant.

S. M. Yaqoob for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 16th April, 1985.

This is an appeal directed against the order of Labour Court No. V1, Hyderabad, dated 8th December, 1982.

2. The facts briefly stated are that the appellant, Abdul Rauf was employed by the respondent mills and was serving as a Simplex Tenter. There was a dispute in respect of the happening of 4th November, 1981. According to the appellant, at 2.00 p. m. on 4th November, 1981 he reached the respondent mills to resume his duties at 3‑00 p. m. He stood in queue to receive his salary. At 2.45 p. m., while it was his turn to receive the salary, the clerk Zulfiqar obtained his thumb mark on Payment Register and gave him card and directed him to go to the Labour Officer of the mills. The Labour Officer informed the appellant to get his out standing dues and go away. It was because on 4th November, 1981 the appellant had resigned. This point of resignation was disputed by the appellant and the appellant's stand was that he did not resign. Therefore, he went for intervention to the Labour Directorate where the stand of the respondent mills was that the appellant had resigned by written resignation, dated 4th November, 1981 and he was paid off. The Labour Directorate could not decide the issue. The stand taken by the appellant was that he did not resign and it is the respondent mills who had managed to obtain the application purported to be the resignation of the appellant though he did not tender his resignation. He, therefore, gave notice of the grievance which was rejected by the respondent mill.

3. In the reply statement the respondents challenged the maintain ability of the grievance application on the ground that no right of the appellant had been infringed and that he had no remedy available to him under section 25‑A, I. R. O. 1969 after he resigned from the service. It was the case of the respondents that on 4th November, 1981 the appellant bad voluntarily tendered his resignation and he accepted the full and final dues. The respondents claimed to have accepted the resignation and to have paid the appellant his full and final dues. It was admitted that the appellant made complaint to the Labour Directorate but it was alleged to have been done under the instigation of the professional leaders to black‑mail respondent mills. The complaint was found to be false by the Labour Directorate.

4. I have heard the learned counsel, Mr. Bashir Awan for the appellant and Mr. S. M. Yaqoob for the respondent mills. The moot point in this case is whether the appellant tendered his resignation on 4th November, 1981. The resignation, as drafted in Urdu is examined by me. It bears the signature of Abdul Rauf, the appellant. Abdul Rauf states that his signature is forged and that he did not resign. His thumb mark was taken by the clerk Zulfiqar due to the payments made on 4th November, 1981 for the last fortnight of October, 1981. The signatures were sent to the Handwriting Expert and although the Handwriting Expert was not examined but his report was seen and exhibited. The report of the Handwriting Expert is that the signatures belonged to the appellant. I have also examined the signatures and have compared the same, and the signatures appear to be of the appellant, Abdul Rauf. Then there are signatures on the grievance petition and the affidavit of the appellant which are also compared and seen with the naked eyes and they do appear to be the signatures of the appellant and they are similar to the signatures on the resignation of the appellant.

5. The contention is that if the signatures of the appellant do appear on the resignation application by the appellant then why did he agitate a grievance petition. This is clear that there are faction of union leaders and due to the union leaders he took the stand that he did not resign from service. This is plausible explanation. The learned Labour Court has believed that the resignation was tendered by the appellant and there could be no doubt about it.

6. I have seen the pros and the cons of the situation and seen the relevant documents and conclusion that there is hardly any chance to differ from the findings of the Labour Court. Accordingly I maintain the order of the Labour Court and dismiss this appeal.

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.