Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ARK GARMENTS INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LIMITED, KARACHI VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD YASINHonorable Justice Agha Ali HyderMrs. Majida Rizvi
1993 P L C 261
1993 P L C 261
[Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh]
Present: Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal
ARK GARMENTS INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LIMITED, KARACHI
versus
MUHAMMAD YASIN
Appeal No. KAR‑132 of 1992, decided on 25th October, 1992.
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑Termination‑‑‑Reinstatement of‑‑‑Employee had challenged his determination from service by filing grievance petition against employers Grievance petition was resisted by employers alleging that petition was malicious as employee of his own free will and accord, had resigned from job‑‑‑Handwriting Expert had categorically stated that signatures on alleged resignation application were not in agreement with specimen and other signatures of employee‑‑‑Witness produced even by employers had conceded in his cross‑examination that employee neither had tendered resignation nor had signed in his presence‑‑‑Version of employer that it was employee who had tendered resignation of his own free will, had stood demolished as circumstances had belied same‑‑‑Trial Court, in circumstances, had rightly reinstated employee.
Nisar Ahmed Siddiqui and another v. Hostelleries D France, Karachi 1987 PLC 178 ref.
Mrs. Majida Rizvi for Appellant.
Respondent in person.
Date of hearing:22nd October, 1992,
DECISION
This appeal from the order of the Labour Court ordering reinstatement of the respondent under section 25‑A in short arises in the following circumstances:‑‑
The case as put forward by the petitioner was that the respondents had terminated the services of 100 workers in September 1988 and the rest were axed out on 1‑10‑1988.
2. The respondents in their Written Reply apart from some legal contentions raised, which were neither pressed before the Labour Court nor here, asserted that the application was malicious, as the petitioner of his own free will and accord, had resigned from his job on 18‑7‑1988.
3. The petitioner examined himself and the respondents examined their Factory Manager Shahid Jaffri, Muhammad Imtiaz Ahmad, Muhammad Shamim, Abdul Razzak, Mr. Mouladad the Handwriting Expert and Abdul Rauf Finger Print Expert.
4. The resignation is alleged to have been tendered on 18‑7‑1988. It has been admitted by Shahid Jaffri that the respondent did not attend the Factory from 11‑7‑1988 to 18‑7‑1988 and Imtiaz Ahmed candidly conceded that he was on leave from 11‑7‑1988 to 10‑8‑1988. The two attesting witnesses namely Imtiaz Ahmed and Muhammad Shamim have been produced. The former, at the relevant moment was the Labour Assistant and the other was Production Master in the Factory. In his cross‑examination Imtiaz Ahmed conceded that the respondent had neither tendered resignation nor signed in his presence. However, has it that the thumb‑mark the same was on the document was appended before him which also was the version of Muhammad Shamim.
5. The question arises if the respondent was unwell and on leave as stated by Muhammad Shamim, why did he come all the way to the factory to tender his resignation? No explanation has been put forward. The version of the witnesses of the fact is riddled with discrepancies. But greater discomfiture awaited the appellant from the testimony of the independent witnesses who were examined on the application made by Shahid Jaffri himself, but who have been called as Court witnesses by the Labour Court. Both are in the employ of the Sindh Government.
6. Mr. Mouladad has categorically stated that the signatures "under dispute on resignation application were not in agreement with the specimen and other signatures of Muhammad Yameen." He was cross‑examined by the learned counsel for the appellant but without any visible advantage
7. Mr. Abdul Rauf testified that the impressions marked referred to him (resignation letter of the respondent) were found blurred and faint and do not bear sufficient data to permit of comparison hence no definite opinion can be given on them.
8. The fight is therefore demonstrably within the appellants' own camp and their version that it was the respondent who had on his own tendered resignation stands demolished. Even circumstances belie the same.
9. It was contended by Mrs. Majida Rizvi learned counsel for the appellant that the factory had been closed and therefore any order of reinstatement would be not called for. Reference was made to 1987 PLC 178 Nisar Ahmed Siddiqui and another v. Hostelleries France, Karachi. It was maintained by the respondent that the factory was very much under production. Be that as it mad, all I need say is that the impugned order is not open to any exception and as a result the same is upheld and the appeal stands dismissed. Orders accordingly.
H.B.T./2110/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.