' ABDUL HAFEEZ CHEEMA (CHAIRMAN).--- This appeal challenges the legality of the decision dated 27-4-1998 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,1, Lahore whereby the grievance petition filed by the respondent was allowed with the following observations:--- "The petitioner has established on the record that he has withdrawn the so-called resignation prior to its final approval, so the petitioner could not be ousted from his service merely on the basis of the said resignation. In this pretext, the impugned order cannot be allowed to stand, which is hereby set aside. As far as the back- benefits are concerned, although the petitioner allegedly remained unemployed throughout this period, but I am not going to grant the same to him, because his resignation was in dispute and he was ousted from the service of the Bank on the basis of the said resignation, which was subsequently withdrawn. I direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in his service. The petition stands accepted in the above mentioned terms.
There is no order as to costs."
2. The facts of the case briefly are that the respondent joined the bank on 20-1-1985 and was confirmed on 4-8-1985. Due to certain differences with the bank he was allegedly coerced to resign from the post on 13-11-1991 which was received by the bank on the same day at 11-30 a.m. He however continued to request the bank not to accept his resignation and he may be allowed to continue his services but the management continued to put him off on false promises that they would consider his request. Ultimately after some time he withdrew his resignation vide letter dated 28-1-1992 (Exh.P-4) dispatched through G.P.O. Lahore to the bank office situate at 14- Kashmir/Agerton Road, Lahore vide letter Exh.P-3 and its postal receipts Exh.P-4/1. The bank however allegedly accepted his resignation vide letter dated 6-2-1992 Exh.P-6. The respondent approached the bank authorities to allow him joining as he had withdrawn his resignation well before its acceptance. They however refused him joining which obliged the respondent to file grievance petition.
3. The bank contested the grievance petition on the ground that the resignation was accepted when withdrawal had not been communicated to them as such he was no longer their employee.
The learned Labour Court recorded the evidence of the parties. The respondent appeared in support of his version as PW-1. The bank examined one Mr. Masood Raza, Ex.. Personnel Manager of the bank as RW-1 and Mr. Sami Ullah Khan Credit Administrator, Lahore City Branch of the Bank as RW-2. The respondent supported his version in the grievance petition and was subjected to cross- examination. The first question put to him by the learned counsel for the appellant-bank was that he resigned from his service out of his free will which he denied. The second question was it not a fact that his resignation was accepted on the day when he presented the same which he strongly denied. He was asked whether it was a fact that after 13-11-1991 when he submitted his resignation he did not function in the bank which he stoutly refuted. He asserted that the letter of acceptance was much later than his withdrawal of resignation. Mr. Masood Raza RW-1 stated that the bank received the resignation dated 13-11-1991 and the bank allegedly wrote a letter dated 8-12-1991 to the respondent that his resignation had been accepted from the day it was received subject to his clearance of the outstanding loan amount. His relieving order shall be issued subject to his clearance of dues. This letter was not got exhibited by the court in view of being a photo copy and not the original one. Likewise Exh.R-1/2, Exh.R-21-2, Exhs.R-3 to R-6 being photo copies of the originals were retained on the record subject to the objection of the other side but not exhibited.
The learned Labour Court did not rely upon these documents as there was no authenticity with regard to the copies of the Photostats.
4. Arguments have been heard and record has been perused.
5. It appears from the record that the respondent has been successful in establishing his case that he had sent his resignation on 13-11-1991 which appears to have been sent to the Headquarters Office presumably on the ground that there was some loan amount outstanding against him kept it pending and the Lahore office had continued to remain waiting for the decision of the Headquarters Office at Karachi. However the respondent was lucky enough to have withdrawn his resignation on 28-1-1992 through a registered letter posted from G.P.O. Lahore to the bank office at Egerton Road, Lahore which appeared to have been received by the bank authorities on the following day. The bank realizing that he had withdrawn the resignation dispatched the letter that the resignation had been accepted on 6-2-1992. Since the resignation had been withdrawn prior to its acceptance the subsequent order accepting the resignation after about 6/7 days had no legal validity. Even otherwise, according to section 27 of the General Clauses Act the law presumes that service shall be deemed to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post unless it is proved to the contrary. This is an inference to be raised by law on posting a registered post properly and prepaid letter containing the document. Onus in such a situation shall be on the addressee to prove that the service of notice was not in fact affected on him. The learned Labour Courts appears to have examined and analyzed the evidence properly and has come to a right conclusion.
6. Even otherwise a careful perusal of the record shows that the bank had not been dealing with the respondent in a becoming manner. He had filed the grievance petition in 1992 which continued to be dragged upto 1998. They displayed a casual and careless attitude in putting up their defence.
The respondent concluded his evidence on 14-11-1996 whereas the appellant bank took about 21 adjournments and seeing that the bank was not prepared to put up their defence the evidence of the bank was closed by the Labour Court compulsorily. The case was adjourned on the request of the bank for four times subject to costs but the costs were not paid either and ultimately the learned Labour Court took a lenient view and allowed the bank to produce their evidence. Even then the bank obtained six adjournments for addressing arguments. On 23-2-98 the bank formally requested that they may be allowed to examine their witnesses which were allowed. Again for arguments five adjournments were sought by the bank and ultimately the case was decided on 27-4-1998. The bank's attitude throughout has been deplorable. The banks are respectable institutions and they are expected to display fair and decent attitude not only towards their clients but also to their employees. If they demand that their employees should not break their trust likewise the employees also expect the reply in the same fashion.
7. In this view of the matter the appeal has no merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.