ABDUL HAFEEZ CHEEMA, CHAIRMAN - Through this revision petition the petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 16.02.2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the order of the Authority was upheld with the following observations:- "4. Admittedly Exh. R-3 is basic document on the basis of which learned Authority has dismissed the claim of the appellant. The Exh. R-3 clearly reveals that appellant received Rs. 63816/- from the respondent and signed document. It is further mentioned in Exh. R-3 that he received salary, overtime, gratuity, notice pay and leave account alongwith bonus from the respondent. It has been signed by the appellant and his thumb-impression is also present on this document.
5. It has also been admitted in evidence by the appellant before the learned Authority that this document bears his signature. In such circumstances, appellant has no case. Hence, his appeal is dismissed. Record of the learned Authority be sent back. The present file be consigned to record room."
2. The facts of the case briefly are that the petitioner instituted an application under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 before the learned Authority for payment of wages/gratuity, notice pay, and leave encashment total amounting to Rs. 67,400/-. The learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act after framing the issues, recording evidence and hearing the parties dismissed the application on 24.11.2009 which was challenged before Labour Court which too was dismissed as indicated above.
3. It was pleaded by the petitioner before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act that he was a mechanical fitter in the respondent establishment and joined service on 1.4.2004. He was ousted from service on 30.6.2008 and a sum of Rs. 67,000/- was due from the respondent.
According to the respondent the petitioner had resigned from service on 1.7.2008 and had received his total dues amounting to Rs. 63,816/-. The claim had been filed with a mala fide intention to blackmail the establishment.
4. The petitioner had appeared as PW-1 before the Authority and supported his claim in the application. He denied that Exh. R-1 was his resignation signed by him. According to him at the time of recruitment i.e. Four years before his ouster from service he was required to sign a blank paper and subsequently he was only paid his notice pay. The establishment however filled that blank paper showing that the entire dues had been paid. He admitted that he had been duly given a clearance certificate Exh. R-2 by the establishment. He denied that he had affixed his thumb- impressions on Exh. R-4. He examined one Muddasir Rasool in support of his contention who stated that his pay was Rs. 5,700/-. He was Fitter in the establishment. The witness states that he himself resigned from the service but in the same breath stated that he was gate stopped and was ousted from service. On the other hand Mr. Muhammad Ali Shakir, Admin. Manager of the establishment while appearing as RW-1 stated that the petitioner had submitted his resignation R-1. The Factory establishment prepared his final dues which he received and appended his signatures. His resignation was duly accepted through Exh. R-4 and all the claims of the petitioner regarding over time, gratuity, notice, leave encashment, etc. In total Rs. 63,819/- were received by him and there is nothing due to him from the establishment.
5. Arguments have been heard and record has been perused.
6. The Authority under the Payment of Wages Act appears to have taken due care of the claim and each issue was discussed properly and fairly. The decision of the Authority is indeed based on sound reasons. The learned Labour Court has also taken requisite care of the claim of the petitioner and decided the appeal fairly and equitably. Even otherwise, when the factual proposition is decided by the initial as well as the Appellate Court, the Tribunal has no authority to disturb the concurrent findings of fact by the two Courts below. Reference may be made to PLJ 2011 Lahore page 42, PLD 2010 Peshawar page 73, and PLJ 2009 Lahore page 248. It is obvious that the re- appraisal of evidence in revisional jurisdiction is not permissible. Mere erroneous decision would not at all call for interference unless it is established that the decision was based on no evidence or inadmissible evidence or it was perverse.
7. Both the Courts below have dealt with the case properly and in accordance with the dictates of law. There is no flaw or infirmity or defect in the impugned judgments and the same are hereby upheld.
8. In this view of the matter, the revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.