ZONAL CHIEF, HABIB BANK LIMITED, MINGORA, SAWAT Versus HAZRAT HUSSAIN
1. This decision will also dispose of Cross Objection bearing No.35lof 1995 as both the appeal and cross‑objection arise from one and the same Judgment dated 24‑3‑1994 of the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Swat whereby the grievance petition filed by the respondent was accepted and he was ordered to be reinstated in service with 50 per cent. back benefits for the period from 19‑8‑1992 till resumption of duty. The appellants are dissatisfied with the above order of the learned Labour Court whereas the objector respondent has prayed for the grant of full back benefits since 10‑8 1992 in Grade‑1st.
2. The relevant factual background of the case is that the respondent was employed as Grade‑II Officer in the appellant bank. He was involved in a criminal case and was, therefore, dismissed from service on 10‑9‑1980. He approached the Labour Court for reinstatement and his grievance petition was accepted by the Labour Court on 5‑3‑1984. This decision of the Labour Court was reversed by the Chairman, Labour Appellate Tribunal on 2‑8‑1984 and the writ petition against this decision was also dismissed on 3‑4‑1985. However, a Review Board which was constituted to review the case of Government Servants accepted the review petition of the respondent on 29‑11‑1990 and ultimately the petitioner/respondent resumed duty from 5‑1‑1991. The petitioner continued in service when he tendered his conditional resignation on 1‑6‑1992 which was accepted on 4‑8‑1992. The petitioner was aggrieved from the order of acceptance of his resignation and, therefore, after serving grievance notice on the Bank authorities he filed the present grievance petition for reinstatement in service and back benefits from 10‑8‑1992.
3. Both the learned counsel were heard in support of their respective viewpoints and the record was studied.
4. The sole point for determination in this case is as to whether the resignation of the respondent was conditional and involuntary or otherwise. It is proved on record that the petitioner/respondent was reinstated in service in pursuance of the order of the Review Board and no exception was taken to the said order by the Bank as the following portion of the Order of the Review Board indicates:‑
5. "Even otherwise at preset the bank does not object to the reinstatement of the petitioner as the petitioner was not allowed any legal recourse nor any prima facie evidence was stated against the petitioner."
6. It is to be noted that on an earlier occasion the conditional resignation submitted by the respondent was not even forwarded to the competent authority for acceptance. The respondent through Exhibit 1/13 again submitted his resignation on the ground that the order of his reinstatement has not been fully complied with as the pay, allowances and all other benefits of service between the period he was removed from service till he was reinstated have not been paid to him. It was also complained therein that the petitioner/respondent was inducted as Grade‑III Officer in the Bank but still the petitioner has not been considered fit for promotion in spite of the lapse of sufficient time and that power of attorney has also not been issued to him. The learned Labour Court on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record came to the conclusion that the resignation submitted by the petitioner/respondent was out of compulsion and involuntary and, therefore, the appellants should have gone into the matter to redress the grievance of the respondent instead of immediately accepting the resignation without any probe. Nothing substantial was indicated to differ with the conclusion arrived at by the Labour Court and, therefore, there is no need for interference with a finding based merely on factual controversy. I also find no merit in the Cross Objection. The appeal and cross‑objections are, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.
7. H.B.T./190/N.‑W.F.P. Appeal dismissed.