MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus MANAGER, PERVAIZ TEXTILE MILLS, LAHORE
The decision dated 20‑3‑1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore is reported to be wrong and of no legal effect.
2. The petitioner claims gratuity, five per cent share in profit for the years 1978 to 1980, bonus for the said years and encashment of unavailed leave. The petition was allowed by the learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act vide its order dated 4‑1‑1982. The respondent brought a civil suit, which was dismissed within a week's time and an appeal; was preferred before the learned lower Court, which was accepted on 21‑1‑1982 and the case was remanded. On 2‑7‑1985 the petition was dismissed by the Authority and the appeal filed, and hence this revision. The learned Authority disallowed the claim of the petitioner with regard to five per cent share in the profit, bonus and encashment, of un-availed leave on the ground that no evidence had been produced. So far as gratuity is concerned, it was held that the petitioner had been dismissed from service, therefore, was not entitled to it. For the same reason the appeal was dismissed.
3.The case of the petitioner is that he had tendered resignation which was accepted vide order Exh. P‑1, therefore, no dismissal order could 'be passed thereafter, nor any action could be taken for any misconduct. Exh. P.1 is a photostat copy and is not certified as true copy. The respondent disowns the said order. So far as charge‑sheet Exh. R‑2, inquiry notice Exh. R‑4 and dismissal order are concerned, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that they are not the same, which were tendered in evidence as they do not bear the signatures of the Presiding Officer. So far as the resignation and the order of its acceptance are concerned, the denial of the respondent is not sufficient. The authority who purports to have signed the order of acceptance of resignation was not examined to disown his signatures. Even no comparison was got made of the disputed signatures with any admitted or specimen signatures. The learned Authority did not advert to the point whether the resignation was given and whether it was accepted or not. If it is proved that the resignation was given and was accepted, no question would arise that the petitioner was dismissed from service thereafter only that employee can be dismissed. Who, is in service Needless to say that after accepting the resignation, the employee ceases to remain in service and thus no action can be taken against him thereafter. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that the Authority is not competent to decide whether the dismissal order was legal or not and that the petitioner should have challenged the order of dismissal before the Labour Court. In cases where only an order of dismissal exists, of course it may be said that the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act has no jurisdiction to go behind it but in the present case the plea of the petitioner was that he had resigned and that the resignation had been accepted. The Authority therefore was competent to decide the point whether the petitioner had in reality resigned. If the Authority had come to the conclusion that the petitioner had resigned then it would have become very easy for the Authority to ignore the order of dismissal because after the acceptance of the resignation no dismissal order could be passed.
4. As a result, the revision is accepted to the extent of the gratuity claimed by the petitioner and setting aside the orders of the Courts below the case is remanded to the learned Authority for redecision after allowing the parties to produce relevant evidence on the points of resignation and its acceptance.
A.A./171/Lb.P Revision partly accepted.