1. ' ARSHAD NOOR KHAN, J.--- By this order, I intend to dispose of Labour Appeal No,66 of .2005 Ahsanullah v. Messrs Army Welfare Sugar Mills and. Labour Appeal No,67 of 2005 Abdul Aziz v.
2. Messrs Army Welfare Sugar Mills, as both the appeals involve the common question of facts and law.
3. ' The appellants have challenged the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No,VI, Hyderabad dated, 15-8-2005, whereby the applications Nos.164 and 165 of 2004 under section 46(3) of I.R.O., 2002 filed by the appellants, for their reinstatement were dismissed.
4. ' The facts leading rise to the present appeal in brief are that the appellants were appointed as Field man in the mill of the respondent. Both in their separate applications filed before the learned lower Court stated that the management of the respondent-mill dislike the union activities in the mill, therefore, they want to get rid of those workers, who involved in the union activities. The appellants were threatened by the respondent to sign resignations presented before them by the respondent and accept their all dues, failing which they will be transferred to Nizampur Cement Plant situated in N-W.F.P. Which was sister concern of the respondent. On the threat of the respondent, the appellants signed the said resignations and they both were given separate cheques amounting to Rs,1,18,800 towards their final payment of the dues. It is further stated in the grievance application that their resignations were obtained forcibly with mala fide intention, therefore, they both served grievance notice under section 46(1) of the I.R.O., 2002 on 28-8-2004 separately on the respondent, which were served, but they did not respond, therefore, they filed separate applications before the learned lower Court for their reinstatement.
5. The notice of the said petition for reinstatement of the appellants, was served on the respondent, who appeared before the learned lower Court wherein they admitted transfer of certain workers to Nizampur Cement Plant being their sister concern because they required good workers for their fast extending project, who were transferred on the terms and conditions of their appointment letters. The respondent also denied to have obtained the resignations of the appellants forcibly under their threat of transfer and have stated that they voluntarily tendered their resignations, whereupon they were paid all outstanding dues by way of cheques, which were en cashed by them and that the grievance petition before the learned lower Court was not maintainable.
6. After filing of the written statement, the parties lead their evidence in pro and contra to their respective claim and the learned lower Court after appraisal of the evidence available on record was pleased to allow the grievance application filed by the appellants and is directed the respondent of their reinstatement. However, back-benefits were not allowed to the appellants.
7. ' The appellants being aggrieved against the refusal of grant of back-benefits have filed the present appeal.
8. ' I have heard Mr. Ghulam Sarwar Chandio, learned counsel for the appellants.
9. ' He vehemently contended that when the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the resignations of the appellants were result of threat and duress, the learned lower Court while ordering reinstatement of the appellants was not justified to refuse the back-benefits to the appellants, as such, the appellants may be allowed back-benefits from the date when they allegedly tendered their resignations till the reinstatement of the appellants.
10. ' I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants and have gone through the judgment passed by the learned lower Court.
11. ' It is an admitted position that at the time when the alleged resignations were tendered, both the appellants were given cheques amounting to Rs,1,18,800 separately towards their dues, which they en cashed. The encashment of the said cheques by the appellants remained undisputed. The learned lower Court also took note of encashment of the said cheques and has also observed that the appellants were also party and responsible for signing the resignations, therefore, they were not entitled for back-benefits. The appellants have also not led any evidence to show that during the period when their petitions were pending trial before the learned lower Court, they did not employ themselves in any other service or profit-earning jobs and remained idle for whole period during the pendency of their petitions before the learned lower forum. Learned counsel for the appellants has also not convinced the learned lower Court that the appellants remained idle for such period and even before this Court it has not been pleaded that the appellants were sitting idle during whole period of pendency of their petition before the learned trial Court. The order passed by the learned trial Court appears to be well reasoned and after appraisal of the whole evidence available on record and the case-law on the subject no illegality or irregularity has been pointed out in the order passed by the learned lower Court.
12. ' For all aforesaid reasons and circumstances, I do not find it a fit case to interfere in the finding recorded by the learned lower Court. The appeals have, therefore, no merit. Both the appeals were dismissed summarily on 6-10-2008 for the reasons to be recorded later on and these are the reasons for the same.