Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. FD‑654 of 1981, decided on 24th February, 1982.

‑‑‑ Resignation‑‑Workman seeking re‑instatement on plea that resignation obtained from him under coercion‑‑Grounds taken before Labour Court different from those mention in representation to competent authority in grievance notice and grievance petition‑‑Plea, in circumstances, not accepted and order of Labour Court dismissing grievance petition upheld by Appellate Tribunal‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38(3).

‑‑‑S. 37‑‑Appeal‑‑Additional evidence‑‑Document produced at late stage of arguments‑‑Such document not even required for decision of appeal‑ Not taken into consideration.

‑‑‑Resignation‑‑Accepted by competent authority with directions that workman be informed‑‑Application for withdrawal of resignation made subsequent to such date of order of competent authority‑‑Workman, in circumstances, held, could not be said to be still in service on basis of withdrawal of ‑resignation irrespective of fact whether intimation regarding acceptance of resignation was or not received by him.

S.M. Arif for Appellant.

Mien Altaf Hussain for Respondents.

The present appeal arises from the decision, dated 25‑10‑1981, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad, whereby grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement was dismissed. The appellant tendered resignation Exh. R‑1 giving reasons that he could not any longer do service in view of domestic reasons. The resignation is, dated 8‑10‑1980. He mentioned in his petition that the resignation be accepted w.e.f. 8‑11‑1980. The Director Estate Management firstly recommended resignation to the Director‑General vide his order, dated 9‑10‑1980 but accepted it vide his order, dated 11‑10‑1980. On 13‑10‑1980 another order was recorded by the same authority to the effect that the resignation of the appellant was accepted and directed that his name be struck off the strength of the department w.e.f. 8‑11‑1980. The appellant challenged the acceptance of the resignation on the ground that the resignation was not voluntary but Col. Ehsanul Haq, Director Estate Management had got it executed under coercion. He has made application to the Director‑General in this respect and thereafter, filed grievance petition. The plea taken by him was that his brother had got registered a criminal case under section 307, P.P.C. against some military personnel and Col. Ehsanul Haq asked him to get that case withdrawn telling that otherwise he would be dismissed. He also urges that he was beaten by the said Col. He, therefore, under pressure executed the resignation. The grievance petition of the appellant was opposed by the respondent who came forward with the plea that the appellant tendered resignation of his own free will and it was not taken under any coercion. The appellant examined Ali Akbar, Hidayat Ali and also appeared as his own witness. The witnesses supported him by stating that in their presence Col. Ehsanul Haq had got the resignation executed by the appellant forcibly. They also stated that the Col. had asked appellant for compromise in the criminal case brought under section 307, P.P.C. and on the refusal of the appellant got the resignation written by him. On behalf of respondent Col. Ehsanul Haq appeared as RW‑1.

2. The plea taken by the appellant in his petition given to the Director general is different and contradictory to the reason given in the grievance petition. In his petition made to the Director‑General photo-stat of which is P. 1, he said that he went to the room of Col. Ehsanul Haq after being sent for by him and that the Colonel closed the door from inside and picking up a rule started beating him and abusing him and gave a piece of paper and pen to write resignation but in his grievance petition he did not mention that he was beaten and door of the room was closed by the Col. In the grievance notice also he did not mention this fact. In his statement he further took a different position and said that his cousin Ali Ahmed has got criminal ease under section 307, P.P.C. registered against Faiz Muhammad and another and Col. Ehsanul Haq forced him for compromise and when he and All Ahmed his cousin and Muhammad Hussain went to the office and Col. asked him to withdraw the case brought under section 307. He further said that he approached villagers for asking the Col. not to press him for the withdrawal of the case but to no purpose and the Col. said that if he was not willing to withdraw the case he should tender resignation and got resignation executed by him forcibly, but in his grievance petition, grievance notice and application Exh. P‑1 made to the Director‑General he did not say that the Col. had asked him to get with draw of the criminal case under section 307. Rather in his grievance petition he said that the Col. wanted to employee some of his relative in his place. In his statement made before the learned lower Court and in the grievance petition and the petition made to the Director‑General, he did not say that the Col. wanted to employ some of his relative in his place. As mentioned above, he produced two witnesses Ali Akbar and Hidayat who stated that in their presence the Col. had asked the appellant to get the criminal case withdrawn but neither in his grievance petition nor in the grievance notice nor in the application Exh. P‑1 made to the Director‑General he said that in the presence of the two witnesses that Col. had received from him resignation forcibly. On the day of argument of appeal i.e. 22‑2‑1982 learned counsel for the appellant brought an application for additional evidence attaching to the application photo-stat copy of the statement of Ali Ahmed made to police. Firstly, this application for additional evidence had been given et the very late stage when arguments were being heard in appeal and secondly this document is not required for the decision of the appeal. The lower Court no doubt had mentioned in its order that the copy of F.I.R. of the case for the withdrawal of which the Col. had asked the appellant had been brought on the file, but copy of such statement is not sufficient to support the case of the appellant, unless it has been shown that Col. Ehsanul Haq was in reality interested in the person against whom, report was made. There is nothing on record to show that the persons accused by Ali Muhammad in his statement are in any manner related or connected to Col. Ehsanul Haq.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant was taken in service by the Director‑General, therefore, he was competent to accept the resignation. There is nothing on the file to show that it was the Director‑General who appointed the appellant in the respondent department. No doubt letter copy of which is Exh. P‑3 is addressed to the Director‑General, F.D.A., Faisalabad which contains name of the appellant at serial No. 8 but this document does not in any manner show that it was Director‑General who absorbed the appellant in office of F.D.A. The appellant and the other persons enumerated in Exh. P‑3 were employed previously in Malaria Eradication Department and since they were rendered surplus the Additional Chief Secretary, vide letter copy of which is Exh. P‑3 asked the Director‑General, F.D.A., to absorb them in the respondent Department. Since the Director‑General was the head of the department, therefore, this letter was addressed to him, but it would not mean that the Director‑General only was competent to pass order for absorption of the persons mentioned in Exh. P‑3. No copy of the order has been brought on the file by which the appellant was absorbed. Only that order could show as to who had absorbed him. That order must be available in the office and since it has not been produced by the appellant the presumption would go against him that if the said order of appointment would have been produced, it would disproved the plea taken by the appellant in the case. It, therefore, cannot be said that Col. Ehsanul Haq who accepted the resignation was not competent.

4. The appellant made application for withdrawal of his resignation on 25‑10‑1980 whereas the resignation had been accepted on 11‑10‑1980 and vide order, dated 13‑10‑1980 it was directed that intimation be sent to the appellant. No doubt in their record it does not appear that if intimation was received by the appellant before he made application, dated 25th October, 1980. Since it is apparent from the record that the resignation had been accepted much before 25th October, 1980, no question of withdrawal could arise. If of course before resignation had been accepted the appellant had requested for its withdrawal, and it had been refused, it could be said that the appellant was still in service on account of withdrawal of the resignation before it was accepted.

5. The upshot of the above discussion is that the lower Court was justified in dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant. There is no force in the appeal which is dismissed.

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.