Find a Lawyer

Application No. 28 of 1984, decided on 26th May, 1985.

--S.25-A-Petition against termination-Respondent's plea that petitioner has ,resigned voluntarily-Plea of petitioner that he was soon after resignation re-employed-No strong and convincing evidence adduced to support re-employment-Payment sheets and Attendance Register produced by respondent also not bearing name of petitioner--Petition, in circumstances, dismissed.

Ali Ahmad for Applicant.

A. Ghani Khan for Respondent.

The applicant was said to have been appointed as Jabbar in April, 1983. During his service, he was not allowed any overtime or leave salary etc. and he was finally terminated on 30th November, 1983 without assigning any reason and without giving anything in writing, Grievance notice, dated 26th January, 1984 was then sent and having received no reply, he filed the present application for his reinstatement with back benefits.

2. The respondent in its reply statement pleaded that the applicant was appointed on 4th April, 1983 but he himself resigned on 21st April, 1983. Accordingly be was paid off and was never employed thereafter. The maintainability of the petition has also been questioned mainly on the ground that it is barred by limitation. Rest of the contents of the petition have also been denied.

3. Applicant examined himself and one Muhammad Akbar in support of his case, while one Muhammad Farooq, Attorney of the Manager of respondent, appeared as witness on behalf of the respondent. After evi dence, I have heard Mr. Ali Ahmed, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Abdul Ghani Khan, Counsel for the respondent. I have also examined the material on record.

4. It is an admitted fact that the applicant was employed as Double Sider on 4th April, 1983 and he himself voluntarily resigned on 21st April, 1983. He was also paid off for the said period. The plea of the appli cant now is that he was again re-called by the Management on 25th April, 1983 and was re-employed but was suddenly terminated on 30th November, 1983 because the applicant was taking part in Union activities. Of course, the management has refuted this plea and so the only point which requires consideration in this case is whether the applicant was employed again on 25th April, 1983.

5. In his evidence the applicant has produced photostat copy of three documents as A/3, A/4 and A/5 to prove his employment after 25th April, 1983. He could not produce the originals on the plea that the same are with the so management. The respondent has pleaded these docu ments as forged and fabricated. I would accordingly examine these documents and contents thereof. A/3 purports to be an application by one workers Abdul Salam for the issuance of a duplicate card. At the bottom of this application there are signatures of the applicant. Even if this application was made by Abdul Salam and the same was also allowed by the Spinning Master. I have not been able to understand why the applicant had signed under the signatures of Abdul Salam. The application was in between a worker and the Spinning Master who is said to be Incharge of the Department and the applicant bad no connec tion whatsoever with such a request of the worker. If it is presumed that he was supposed to forward it, there should have been a forward ing note. Mere signatures on such an application, photostat copy of which was not required to be kept by the applicant even if it is to be forwarded by him give rise to many presumptions. It may be that under the new technology the signatures might have been added on a photostat copy and then yet another copy was not prepared. In any case, this docu ment alone is not sufficient to prove the employment of the applicant after 25th April, 1983.

6. Second document A/4 shows that some advance amount to be recovered from the workers. There appears to be a note of Spinning Master for deductions but in dubious manner words "and payment to Badruddin" appears to have been written in a different way and these words are not in sequence of the actual note. Even if this document is also genuine it is not clear why the amount was to be paid to Badruddin when the advance amount, certainly belonging to employer, was to be deducted by the Wage Incharge. After such deduction if any, the amount was to be deposited with the employer by the same Wage Incharge. Why this amount be paid to Badruddin after deduction has not been explained even by the applicant. The supporting witness of the applicant bas stated in para. 2 of his affidavit that applicant had given Rs. 100 as Eid advance in July, 1983 but in his cross-examination he had deposed that the applicant had deducted advance amount from his wages in the month of Ramazan. The statement of this witness is self-contradictory and further more it is quite contrary to the document A/4 itself inas much as, according to this document the amount was ordered to be deducted by Wage Incharge and not by applicant. Apart from this, it is not clear who is Badruddin according to this document and why the amount was to be paid to him. This is also contrary to affidavit of applicant himself. For all these reasons I cannot accept this document as true nor the applicant can get any benefit of it.

7. The third document is A/5 and according to it some person was allowed to go outside the gate. The applicant has himself admitted that this document does not relate to him and he also cannot say to whom it was issued. There was also no occasion for the applicant to have photostat copy of a document with which he has no concern. This document also to be excluded from consideration.

8. Muhammad Akbar, supporting witness of the applicant, was no more in employment when he was examined in this Court. His statement, as discussed above, also does not appear to be confidence inspiring and so it is rejected.

9. The respondent has produced the Attendance Register Payment sheets, etc. at the instance of the applicant but after 21st April, 1983, none of these documents bear the name of applicant. It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that attendance register, does not show that it pertains to respondent and so cannot be relied upon. Apparently it is so but even if this register is excluded from consideration, it would not advance the case of the applicant. The applicant. has to base his case as per his grievance notice and petition. In some of these important docu ments he pleaded that he had first resigned on 21st April, 1983 and then rejoined the respondent on 25th April, 1983 and that too at the behest of the respondent. He also did not speak of the documents produced by him for the first time alongwith his affidavit in evidence. In fact, he should have been straightforward to disclose his actual case and he was not expected to give a turn to his case as per the pleadings of the respondent. Once he had voluntarily resigned, should have specifically discharge and if he suppressed this, his conduct becomes doubtful. In any case, since the applicant had taken up the plea of re-employment for the first time in his affidavit in evidence, he was bound to prove this assertion by some strong and convincing evidence which he however could not adduce.

10. In view of the above, the present petition is not maintainable because it would be barred by limitation and further that the applicant has e not been able to establish that he was re-employed on 25th April, 1983 and was terminated on 30th November, 1983. This petition is accordingly dismissed.

A. H.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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