DECISION ' The appellant, who was employed as a bus conductor in the Karachi Transport Corporation, the respondent herein, tendered his resignation from service in writing. According to the resignation application, the resignation was being submitted as a protest against an administrative action taken by the respondent-Corporation, which the appellant considered prejudicial to the interests of workmen. The resignation application is dated 24th February, 1980 but admittedly it was presented to the District Manager of the respondent corporation on 25th February, 1980. On the same day, in the afternoon, the appellant withdrew his resignation and wrote as follows :- {{URDU TEXT} (Sd.) 16-05 25/2 ' The resignation, however, was accepted and intimation of the acceptance of the resignation was given to the appellant on 28th February, 1980. The appellant challenged the acceptance of his resignation by way of a grievance petition before the learned Fourth Labour Court, which has dismissed his grievance petition on the grounds, firstly, that the grievance notice served by the appellant on the respondent corporation was beyond the period of limitation and, accordingly, the grievance petition was not maintainable, and that secondly, the appellant having resigned voluntarily he had no guaranteed right to withdraw the same. The appellant has now come up in appeal to this Tribunal against the said decision.
2. I have heard Mr. Abdul Munim Khan for the appellant and Mr. Sirajul Hague Qureshi for the respondent-Corporation.
1. Now as regards the first point on which the learned Labour Court held appellant grievance petition as not maintainable, it may be pointed out that before serving the normal glievance notice, dated 26th May, 1980, the appellant had submitted a representation, instituted as "appeal" to his appointing authority, the District Manager of the respondent-Corporation, requesting that he may be taken back on duty. The District Manager, M. A. Qureshi, in his evidence before the learned Labour Court, admitted the receipt of this appeal on 8th May, 1980. The appellant had also appended to his grievance petition a photostat copy of another representation, dated 8th May, 1980, which is said to have been addressed by him to the District Manager. This representation purports to have been sent by registered post, acknowledgment due, to the District Manager, but it has not been established that this representation was received by the District Manager. However, it is an admitted position that the other representation instituted "appeal" was received by the District Manager on 8th May, 1980. Although this representation is instituted 'appeal' a perusal of the same makes it clear that it is a representation against the acceptance of his resignation from service. It reads as follows :- {{URDU TEXT}} The legal position is clear that It is the first grievance notice which has to be considered for the purposes of computing the period of limitation Within filed. The above representation, which clearly seeks to bring the grievance of the appellant, to the notice of the employer, and which, thus, fulfils the requirement of the law as to the giving of notice to the employer was filed within three months of the acceptance of the appellant's resignation. Furthermore, the grievance petition was filed by the appellant within two and a half months of the receipt of his grievance notice by the District Manager. As such not only the grievance notice was in time but also the grievance petition had been filed within the period provided in section 25-A, I.R.O. The mere fact that the second grievance notice, dated 26th May, 1980, was given after the period of limitation, is thus immaterial and does not effect the validity of the first grievance notice.
4. Coming to the second point on which the learned Labour Court had held against the appellant, it may be pointed out that it has been admitted by the District Manager in his evidence before the learned Labour Court that the appellant had tendered his resignation on 25th February, 1980 in the morning and had withdrawn the same on that very day in the afternoon. Although in the legal objections raised by the respondent, it was asserted that the appellant withdrew his resignation after it was accepted by the District Manager. Witness M.A. Qureshi, in his evidence before the learned Labour Court, made no such assertion. On the contrary, in Para. 4 of his affidavit before the learned Labour Court, he stated that the appellant, after tendering his resignation wrote on the application that mistake was committed by him and he wants to perform his duties and that the resignation application may be returned to him. An examination of the resignation application shows that though the order passed by Mr. MA. Qureshi on the resignation application accepting the same bears no date, it was clearly passed after the appellant had written on the resignation application that he withdrew the same The question, therefore, that arises is whether having voluntarily tendered his resignation the appellant was entitled to withdraw the same. This question was considered by my learned predecessor in the case of Muhammad Nooruddin v. K.D.A., decided on 23rd January, 1973 wherein he has held that acceptance of a resignation after it was withdrawn is invalid. This decision is reported in 1974 PLC 123. Relying on the same, I hold that the acceptance of the appellant's resignation, having been made after the resignation was withdrawn, was invalid.
5. For the reasons discussed by me above, I would set aside the decision of the learned Labour Court and direct that the appellant be re-instated in service. However, since the appellant had voluntarily tendered his resignation, I am of the view that he is not entitled to any back benefits.