Find a Lawyer

Petition No. 110 of 1984, decided on 9th July, 1985.

‑‑‑Resignation Mode of severance of relationship of employee and employer Resignation when considered effective‑‑Eventualities explained‑‑Workman submitting resignation requesting for its acceptance within 24 hours‑‑No order passed by employer‑‑Workman stopping attending to his duty‑‑Ceased to be in employment on expiry of time mentioned in resignation‑‑Cannot legally be processed for misconduct of absence from duty and order of dismissal from service, in circum stances, held, has no blessings of law hence set aside by Labour Court accepting grievance petition‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S.25‑A, West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), Ss.15(3) & (4).

Muhammad Aslam, petitioner was employed as Shop Clerk, Folding section, Kot Kakhpat Works of PECO, Lahore. He felt annoyed by the unsympathetic attitude of officers of Kot Lakhpat Works and requested the Managing Director respondent No. 2 by application, dated 18th August, 1983 to transfer him from Kot Lakhpat and in case it was not possible for him then his resignation should be accepted from 18‑8‑1983. His request was not acceded to. Instead of it, the General Manager of Kot Lakhpat Works charge‑sheeted him for absence from duty and after holding inquiry dismissed him from service by order, dated 18th October, 1983. Feeling dissatisfied with this order the petitioner served a grievance notice requesting that the order of dismissal from service should be withdrawn and he should be deemed to have resigned from service. The notice did not produce the desired result. Feeling constrained, the petitioner has filed this petition praying that the order or his dismissal from service should be set aside and the respondents may be directed to accept his resignation from the date it was requested.

2. The respondents have resisted the petition. It‑is alleged in the written statement that the petitioner has not ceased to be workman and that the petitioner did not submit an unconditional resignation. Besides, the disciplinary action had been initiated against him prior to the submission of his resignation, it could not be accepted. He committed misconduct for which he has been punished after performing necessary formalities. His petition should be dismissed.

3. The parties have led oral and documentary evidence in support their contentions. The letter of resignation submitted by the petitioner is Exh. P.1. Perusal of this letter indicates that the petitioner was feeling offended by unsympathetic attitude of officers of Kot Lakhpat works. On 17‑8‑1983, the petitioner came late by four minutes and he .vas not allowed to resume duty. He approached the Manager administration Sh. Anwar‑ul‑Haque with a request to intervene and allow him to perform him duty. He declined and suggested to him that ie should better apply for leave. The petitioner then appeared before he Managing Director with his application Exh. P.1 in which after recapitulating the excesses done to him by the Administration requested dm that he should immediately be transferred from Kotlakhpat Works o the Head Office and if it was not possible for him then his resignation would be accepted from 18‑8‑1983. It appears from record that after submitting this letter, the petitioner stopped going to his duty and as marked absent by Kot Lakhpat Works. On 29th August, 1983 a how‑cause notice Exh. P.2 was issued to him in which it was alleged tat he was absent without leave from 17th August, 1983 and the period of his absence attended over more than 10 days. He was, therefore, guilty of misconduct. He was required to submit his reply before 6th September, 1983, The petitioner submitted its reply Exh.P.3. He reiterated that after submission of his resignation he could not be charge‑sheeted. This explanation did not satisfy the General Manager of Kot Lakhpat Works and he issued a notice of inquiry EXh.R.l. He required the petitioner to appear before the Inquiry Officer on 24^th September, 1983 at 9‑00 a.m. in his office. The learned counsel for the petitioner has seriously criticised the procedure adopted by the respondents. He has emphasized that it, has been wrongly alleged in the written statement that the disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner prior to Isis submission of resignation. This fact is substantiated from the perusal of charge‑sheet, dated 29‑8‑1983 whereas the petitioner is alleged to have absented himself from 17th August, 1983 while he submitted Isis resignation on 18th August, 1983. I find substance in this contention. The present disciplinary action was taken against the petitioner after submission of his resignation.

4. Before proceeding further it will be pertinent to acquaint, ourselves with the term resignation' and its consequences. "Termination from service" and on "resignation from service" are two different modes of severance of relationship between the employer and his employee. The former mode is available to the employer and it is subject to the legal obligations but not to the approval of the employee. It takes effect as soon as an order to this effect is passed. While the latter mode is adopted by an employee He has two options open to him:‑

(a) He may straightway resign from the post.

(b) He may resign from the post and leave his resignation to be accepted by the employer within or without a time limit.

The resultant effect of etch of the eventuality stated above shall be different and may be as under:‑

(a) If the employee say 11 resign' and stops attending his duty, he will cease to be in the service with submission of resignation.

(b) If he says 'my resignation may be accepted' his resignation will become effective only when he is intimated about its acceptance by the employer.

In case no order is passed or communicated to the employee within the specified time it will be o4en to employee either to stop working after that date or wait till a reply is received. But where he stops working from that bate, he will be deemed to have resigned and the severance of relationship of employer and the employee will come into being.

5. Now what we have to see is under which category the resignation of the petitioner falls it appears from EXh.P.l that the petitioner submitting his resignation and requested that it should be accepted within 24 hours. The Managing Director being the over‑all incharge of the establishment was competent to pass an appropriate order but no I order within the contemplated period was passed. The petitioner after submitted his resignation stopped attending to his duty. He ceased to be in the employment of the respondent from 12.01 mid‑night of 18‑8‑1983. Thus, a workman who ceases to be on the pay‑roll of its employer cannot be departmentally proceeded. Standing Order 15(3)(e) which has been called in aid of the impugned order is not attracted‑ k Absence without leave for more than ten days must be of a workman who is in service but where a workman has severed his connection with his employer cannot become absent from his job. Thus, the law under which the petitioner has been punished is not applicable to him.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent has emphatically asserted that the resignation of the petitioner was conditional. He was asked to submit unconditional resignation or join duty but he did not do it. He is, therefore, to be blamed for his misfortune. In this connection, he has referred to a letter Exh.R.3. I have carefully gone through this letter. It is, dated 1st September, 1983. It was issued when the petitioner had already been charge‑sheeted. It says 'If you are no more interested to work with the Company, as it is evident from your application, you may tender your resignation accordingly'. It is really strange that the respondents even after having come to know from Exh.P.l that the petitioner was no more interested to work with the Company, did not consider his letter as that of resignation i feel it was a mala fide act on the part of the respondents to have asked for another resignation.

7. Considering the entire evidence on record and the law placed before me, I am of the opinion that the petitioner submitted his resignation on 18‑8‑1983 and ceased to be in the employment of the respondent from that date. All the disciplinary action initiated or completed after that, date has no blessing of law because it was done when the petitioner had ceased to be a workman. I accept this petition, set aside the order of dismissal, dated 18th October, 1983 and hold that the petitioner has resigned from service of the respondent w.e.f. 18‑8‑1983.

A.E. Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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