' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J---This judgment shall decide F.A.O. No,128 of 2005 and F.A.O. No,86/2005, as these proceed against a common judgment of learned Labour Court No,9, Multan.
2. On 27-6-1993, the respondent filed a grievance petition under section 25-A of I.R.O., 1969 against the appellant. It was stated that he had been employed with the appellant since 21-7-1988, as a reserved weaver. He is a member of labour union of the employer establishment. There is a reference to some dispute between the labour union described as Pocket Union and the Genuine Union of which the respondent was a executive member. On 12-3-1993, some members of the opposite labour group gave beating to the petitioner and obtained his signatures on a blank paper in presence of the factory Manager. The matter was reported to the Registrar of Trade Unions but he was referred to the Labour Court. He served a grievance notice on 13-5-1993 complaining that gates have been closed since 12-3-1993. He sought his reinstatement stating that he never submitted his resignation. The appellant in its written statement took the plea that the petitioners voluntarily submitted his resignation on 22-2-1993. Learned Labour Court recorded the evidence of the parties. Vide judgment dated 18-3-2005 the petition was allowed and the respondent was ordered to be reinstated in service with 50% back-benefits. Against the said judgment the employer has filed F.A.O. No,128/05 praying for setting aside of the same while the employee has filed F.A.O. No,86/05 praying for grant of full back-benefits.
3. Mr. M. Suhail Iqbal Bhatti, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant contends that there was no evidence on record that the resignation was obtained under duress and that the evidence has been misread. He further contends that during the course of evidence plea was that, that the weaving section has been closed. He accordingly presses C.M.No,1511/05 for permission to lead additional evidence. Mr. Muhammad Anwar Awan, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends with equal vehemence that there is no evidence or record that the resignation was actually and voluntarily thumb-marked by the petitioner. He opposes the said application with the contention that the plea was never taken in the written statement and further that it is factually incorrect. He also presses the other appeal for enhancement of back-benefits.
4. I have gone through the records of the learned Labour Court, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. Now so far as the matter of closure of section is concerned, I find that there is no such plea in the written statement. Learned counsel contends that this may be because of the fact that by the time written statement was filed, the closure had not been effected. However, I further find that Gulzar Hussain, respondent entered the witness box as P.W.-1 and was cross- examined on 12-6-2003. Similarly P.W.-2 was cross-examined on the said date and no such suggestion was given to any of the said witnesses R.W.1, a labour officer did state that weaving section has been closed. Now the documents sought to be produced by way of additional evidence as factory inspection report by the Labour Officer (Factories Multan) To my mind nothing turns on these reports reason being that the matter of closure is dealt with by statutory provisions contained in the Industrial and Commercial Establishment Standing Order Ordinance 1968 and there is no plea either in the trial Court or in this Court that such statutory provisions have been followed in the matter of alleged closure. This being so it will not serve any purpose to allow the said application and to order a de novo trial. The application is accordingly rejected.
5. Now Exh. R-1 is the alleged resignation. It purports to bear thumb-impression of the respondent. It is addressed to Weaving Manager. Now the respondent was confronted with this document and he stated that Exh. R-1 does not contain his thumb-impression. He also denied that with his free-will and consent he tendered the resignation. Now RW-1 the only witness from the appellant's side did not state at all that Exh.R.1 bears thumb-impressions of the respondent or that it was thumb- marked in his presence. He states that this document was received by him through "Dak" but admits that neither it bears his signatures nor bears any "Dak" number. He further states that Exh.
R-1 also bears the signatures of Jamshaid Kamran, the Manager, (sic) Usman Khan. None of the said person had been produced in the witness box. The appellant having specifically denied submitting his resignation burden was upon the respondent to prove that he has submitted resignation and he has done so voluntarily. This burden has not been discharged.
6. Now so far as the plea of Mr. M. Anwar Awan, Advocate is concerned, I find that the learned Labour Court has given cogent reasons for granting the back-benefits at the said rate, I do not, therefore, find any ground to interfere with the said finding.
7. Both the F.A.Os. Are dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.