Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: YAQOOB MASIH VS Respondent: TOWN COMMITTEE, SARAI ALAMGIR
1993 P L C 899
1993 P L C 899
[Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab]
Present: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal
YAQOOB MASIH
Versus
TOWN COMMITTEE, SARAI ALAMGIR through Chairman, Gujrat
Appeal No. GT‑437 of 1986/Pb., decided on 5th August, 1986,
(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.25‑A‑‑‑Grievance petition for reinstatement in service‑‑‑Termination of service on basis of resignation‑‑‑Thumb‑impression on said resignation subsequently denied by employee‑‑‑Onus of proof‑‑‑Where employee came to Court denying his thumb‑impression on such resignation, onus, held, was upon him and he should have applied to lower Court for comparison of thumb impression.
(b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.25‑A‑‑‑Grievance petition‑‑‑Resignation by employee‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Where employee produced his resignation himself, presumption, held, would be that he was no longer interested in his service and had resigned from post‑‑‑Fact of resignation could not be controverted by mentioning of leave application after said resignation, such application having not been proved by cogent evidence.
(c) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3)‑‑‑Appellate jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑‑Where fact of resignation as result whereof employee's services were terminated could not be controverted by cogent evidence, Labour Court, held, was justified in dismissing grievance petition of employee‑‑‑Appeal dismissed.
Nazir Ahmad Naz, Representative for Appellant.
Ch. Fazal Elahi for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 2nd August 1986.
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal preferred against the decision dated 22‑5‑1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement in service was dismissed.
2. The plea of the appellant was that he never tendered any resignation and that on account of his trade union activities as he was President of the Union, his services were terminated forging resignation Exh. R‑1. He denies his thumb‑impression on Exh. R‑1.
3. It has been argued by the learned representative of the appellant that since the appellant had denied his thumb‑impression on Exh. R‑1, the respondent should have examined some witness to state that he had put his thumb‑impression in his presence, or the thumb‑impression should have been got compared with admitted or specimen thumb‑impression. He has also argued that the solitary witness RW‑1 did not say that the appellant had put this thumb‑impression on Exh. R‑1 in his presence, but there is no force in the arguments of the learned representative. This is not the case of the respondent that the appellant had executed the resignation either in the presence of RW‑1 or any other employee of the respondent. The respondent was, therefore, not in a position to examine any person to state that the appellant had put his thumb‑impression in his presence. RW‑1 stated that the appellant had produced Exh. R‑1 before him. He thus supported the case of the respondent that the resignation was produced by the appellant himself. This evidence was sufficient to prove the resignation and it was not necessary for the respondent to have got compared the thumb‑impressions with any admitted or specimen or specimen thumb‑impression of the appellant. Since the appellant came to Court denying his thumb‑impression on the resignation, the onus was upon him and, therefore, he should have applied to the learned lower Court for the comparison of the thumb‑impression. It has further been argued by the learned representative that no request can be found in Exh. R‑4 that the resignation be accepted. No doubt, there is no such prayer but it was not necessary. When a person produces resignation, it means that he is no longer interested in his service and resigns from the post. This is not the case of the appellant that he had withdrawn the resignation before its acceptance by the respondent. It has been argued that the appellant had made application for leave on 1‑7‑1983 and if he had resigned, no question of his applying for leave could arise. Copy of application is Exh. P‑1 the original alleged to have been sent to the respondent was not caused to be brought on the record. RW‑1 was cross‑examined on the point but he denied that any application for leave was made by the appellant. It, therefore, does not stand proved that any such application for leave was made. The learned lower Court thus was justified in dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant.
4. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
A.A./166/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.