ANWARUL HAQUE Versus PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION, KARACHI

DECISION

This appeal calls in question the order of the Labour Court No. IV, Karachi, dismissing the application riled by the petitioner under section 25‑A of the I.R.O., 1969. The circumstances in which it arose, in brief, are as follows.

2. The petitioner was working in the Process Auto Transport (Operation) Department of the respondent as a time‑keeper. He had submitted his resignation on 21‑11‑1988. It appears that he was also working as a Sales Manager with the State Life Insurance Company, and this news had travelled to the respondents through the State Life Insurance Authorities themselves. Khursheed Ali who has been examined as a witness on behalf of the respondents has stated that their Organisation wanted to employ the petitioner on a permanent basis and had therefore suggested to him to severties with any other establishment where he might have been working. He had gone on to add that it was at his instance that the petitioner had submitted the resignation before the respondents.

3. Be that as it may, apprised of this situation the respondents issued a show‑cause notice to the petitioner as to why he should not be proceeded against for misconduct on the score of this double employment. The petitioner had submitted a reply in denial. As it did not satisfy the respondents, a domestic enquiry was ordered. Muhammad Ibrahim was appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry.

4. The course of the enquiry, however, never ran smooth. It is clearly made out that the petitioner had supporters inside the Organisation who did not want him to come to any harm as a result of the enquiry. They wanted that instead curtain be dropped by the acceptance of his resignation. The result was that Muhammad Ibrahim, the Enquiry Officer, was replaced by one Tariq Javed and later on by Lt.‑Gen. (Recd.) Aslam Zaidi.

5. On the 21‑6‑1989 there was a reminder by Muhammad Farooq, who was the Operational Head of PAT (Operation) Department, and had appeared as a witness, in which a query was made in the following words:‑‑

"Mr. Anwarul Haque has tendered his resignation 7 months ago which is still pending with Central Administration. Despite repeated requests and recommendations his resignation is not being accepted, the reasons arc not known.

Since the individual does not want to continue his services, he should be released:" and ultimately on 14‑11‑1989 the resignation was accepted.

6. Soon thereafter the petitioner served a grievance notice and filed a petition though there was some delay necessitating an application for the condonation of delay.

7. In the written statement that came to be filed it was alleged that the petition was barred by time. The other allegations also came to be denied.

8. The petitioner, apart from himself examined Dr. Shaukat Jalal and the respondents examined Muhammad Farooq referred to above and Syed Khursheed Ali, Manager, State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan.

9. The Labour Court found the material issues against the petitioner and dismissed the petition resulting in this appeal.

10. It is stated that after the despatch of the grievance notice the appellant had gone to visit his native town Shakkar Garh in Sialkot District, where in February he became ill and was unable to walk or travel. He remained bed‑ridden there as he was advised rest up to 9‑4‑1990. It is said that the delay was because of circumstances beyond his control and in support he had examined Dr. Shaukat Jalal, the physician who had treated him.

11. Dr. Shaukat Jalal hails from the same place as the appellant namely Shakkar Garh. He has stated that on the 10th of February the appellant had come to his clinic with kidney pain and he had advised him rest for a month ending on 9‑3‑1990. There is no mention that he had examined him in between. At the end of the month, all that he does is to give another certificate for rest from 9‑3‑1990 to 3‑4‑1990 because of this renal colic problem. On his own showing he does not keep any medical history sheet or the record of patients treated by him. This evidence did not pass muster before the Labour Court and to my mind this bed rest of a month and an extension by 3 weeks thereafter is nothing but a cock and bull story. The appellant to improve his finances was working at two places at Karachi. He had allegedly left for his native town after the dismissal. One source of income had dried up. He could not play traunt to the other. To my mind the delay occurred because the appellant could not make up his mind whether to pursue the matter any more or not. Be that may the petition was filed with delay and there is no sufficient cause made out to condone the delay. This by itself is enough to dispose of the appeal.

12. Adverting to the merit there is nothing brought on the record to indicate that any progress had been made with the domestic enquiry. Even the appellant admits that it had not been completed. Some senior official was not prepared to let the appellant walk away merely by tendering his resignation. He could not hold two jobs, one too many. It is true that he was not a regular employee of the State Life Insurance Company as stated by Syed Khursheed Ali but he was getting premium on the business brought by him to the Insurance Company. There was a circle of supporters who were of the view that the resignation should be acc6pted and the domestic enquiry should be dropped. This is more than borne out from the statement of Muhammad Farooq, the immediate Head of the Department in which the appellant was working. This tussle accounts for the delay of one year in the acceptance of the resignation.

13. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf learned counsel for the appellant however contended that such a long delay in the eventual acceptance of the resignation would nullify the acceptance. He sought support from a judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Riaz Ahmed Shahid v. Manager, Manaro Textile Mills, Kotri reported in 1992 PLC 701 wherein it was held "that the resignation tendered by the workman would be deemed to have been accepted either on the expiry of the period of notice or within a reasonable time from the expiry of notice which shall not exceed more than a month". However, this very judgment shows that there have been decisions to the contrary by this Tribunal. I would very respectfully subscribe to the latter view. I might as well mention that the facts; of this case otherwise too are very much different from the judgment referred to by the learned counsel where it was observed that the delay occurred because the management wanted to use it as a Sword of Damocles against an agitator.

14. To my mind there is no fault to be found with the conclusion reached by the Labour Court. I will therefore uphold the order and dismiss the appeal.

H.B.T./2200/Lb.S

Appeal dismissed.