MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus GENERAL MANAGER, AZIZ FLOUR MILLS, BALHAWALPUR

Muhammad Sharif, appellant has preferred the instant appeal under section 37(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 from the decision given by learned Punjab Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur on 17‑5‑1992 dismissing his grievance petition.

2. The appellant was employed as Helper Blacksmith by the respondent on 22‑11‑1971 vide Exh. P.6. On 29‑11‑1976 he was promoted as Blacksmith vide Exh. P.7. He alleged that in spite of the fact that he continued performing his duties honestly and diligently, the respondent verbally terminated his service on 2‑1‑1991. On 6‑2‑1991 he served a grievance notice on the respondent demanding his reinstatement on the allegation that the termination of his services was violative of law.

3. Since the respondent did not respond to the grievance notice of the appellant, he filed a grievance petition under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 on 23‑2‑1991 asserting that the verbal termination of his service was in contravention of law and praying for his reinstatement with back benefits.

4. The respondent opposed the grievance petition. It was alleged that the appellant had tendered his resignation on 1‑7‑1990. It was accepted on the same day and on 10‑7‑1990 he was relieved of his duties after payment of Rs.16,806 as his total dues under the law. The service of the grievance notice was denied.

5. The learned Labour Court recorded evidence. The appellant examined only himself while in rebuttal the respondent produeed two witnesses. After appraising the evidence, the learned Labour Court found that the appellant had tendered his resignation on 1‑7‑1990 and received all his dues on 10‑7‑1990 by settlement. It further held that the grievance notice Exh. P.2 was served upon the respondent on 6‑2‑1992 but it was time‑barred as the resignation tendered by the appellant on 1‑7‑1990 had been accepted on the same day and he had received all his dues on 10‑7‑1990. In view of these findings, the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed vide impugned judgment.

6. I have perused the record and heard learned counsel for the parties. The‑respondent has tendered in evidence the resignation of the appellant as Exh. R‑1. It bears his signatures. Its contents show that it was accepted on the same day. The receipt whereby the appellant received an amount of Rs.16,806 on 10‑7‑1990 as his dues was exhibited as R.6. This receipt is attested by two witnesses namely Mr. Noor Khan, Supervisor and Mr. Khurshid Ahmed, Fitter who were examined as RW‑1 and RW‑2. Both the witnesses testified that the appellant received the above amount as his dues after resigning from service. Mr. Khurshid Ahmed, Fitter RW‑2 is a neighbour of the appellant and belongs to his brotherhood. Nothing has been elicited in their cross‑examination, which could recoil on their veracity. In view of the evidence, the solitary statement of the appellant that he did not resign and his services were verbally terminated stands fully rebutted. Therefore, the finding of the learned Labour Court on this point is unassailable.

7.Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that since notice of acceptance of the resignation was not given in writing to the appellant, the resignation lost its efficacy. This argument has no force as it is manifest from the record that on 10‑7‑1990 he received all his dues by way of gratuity, leave salary and pay for the period from 1‑7‑1990 to 10‑7‑1990 vide receipt Exh. R‑6. This fact demonstrates that the appellant had sufficient notice of the acceptance of his resignation. Learned counsel for the appellant has cited Ahmed Ali v. M/s. Nagina Cotton Mills No. 2 (1991 PLC 693) and Riaz Ahmad Shahzad v. Manager, Bhanaro Textile Mills Kotri (1992 PLC 701) which, however, deal with different facts and have no relevance.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has addressed no arguments to challenge the finding of the learned Labour Court that the grievance notice served by the appellant on the respondent was barred by time.

9. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned decision given by Punjab Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur is upheld and this appeal is dismissed as without substance.

H.B.T./749/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.