Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD YOUSUF VS Respondent: PAKISTAN OIL EXPELLER AND STEEL RE-ROLLING MILLS, JUDGMENT
Court Name: Labour Appellate Tribunal Judge(s): Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi Title:MUHAMMAD YOUSUF vs PAKISTAN OIL EXPELLER AND STEEL RE-ROLLING MILLS,
JUDGMENT
Reported As: 1984 PLC 1191 Result: Appeal dismissed Judgment JUDGMENT ' The appeal titled above emerges from the decision, dated 20th September, 1982 delivered by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 2, Lahore, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant for his re-instatement in service. 2. An industrial dispute was raised by the C. B. A. Union but the dispute was settled on the agreement that as the raw material was not available, the workers may resign and would be re- employed on the re-start of the Mills. The appellant and other workers resigned and received their dues. The appellant, however, denies to have given any resignation. Besides his own statement there is no evidence on the record to show that the appellant did not execute any resignation. His case is that on blank paper his thumb-impressions were received. This statement in the absence of cogent evidence was rightly disbelieved by the learned lower Court. Mr. Muhammad Iqbal R. W. 1 was the counsel for the C. B. A. In the industrial dispute and he had scribed all the resignations. He said categorically that in his presence the appellant had thumb-marked the resignation and had received his dues. There was no enmity between the appellant and R. W. 1. So why he may have acted as a tool in the hands of the respondent in the victimization of the appellant. The President of the Union P. W. 2 too deposed aga;nst the appellant. There is overwhelming evidence of the fact that the appellant did execute resignation Exh. R. I by thumb- marking it after it was on his asking scribed by Mr. Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate R. W. 1. The appellant received his dues in full and final settlement of his claim and was estopped from bringing application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for his re- instatement in service. His petition 'was therefore rightly dismissed by the learned lower Court.