DECISION ' This appeal by the contractor of the appellant mills is directed against the decision of the learned First Labour Court. Given on 2nd February, 1980. Holding that the respondents had not resigned from the appellant establishment and directing the appellant to re-instate them with back benefits.
2. The respondents were employed as weavers in the appellant establishment of which appellant Ahsanullah Baig is said to be the contractor. The respondents, on 21st May, 1979, submitted individual grievance petitions to the learned Labour Court complaining that though they had been required to work for 12 hours a day they have not been' paid overtime wages, that the appellants establishment had taken their signatures and the signatures of other workmen on plain papers and vouchers, that the respondents had been elected as officers and members of the managing committee of the trade Union in the appellants establishment and intimation of this fact was given to the appellant establishment, which had terminated their services contrary to the provisions of Standing Order 12(3). The appellants resisted the respondents grievance petitions on the common ground that the respondents had voluntarily resigned and had been paid their dues in full and final settlement of their claims. In support of their contentions they produced the resignations of the respondents as well as payment registers acknowledging receipt of dues by the respondents in full and final settlement of their claims. The respondents, except respondent Ismail, admitted their signatures on the resignation applications and the payment vouchers but contended that these signatures were obtained by them at the time of entry in service and that in fact neither they had resigned nor they had been paid their dues in full and final settlement of their claims as contended by the appellants establishment. As regards the case of respondent Ismail, though he denied his signatures on the resignation and the payment voucher upon comparison of his admitted signatures with the signatures on the disputed documents, the learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that they tallied and hence held that the signatures on the resignation and the payment vouchers were of respondent Ismail. The learned Labour Court, however, did not accept the evidence of these documents in spite of holding that the signatures thereon were of the respondent. He was persuaded to this view by two circumstances. The first is the letter. Dated 3rd May 1979, addressed by respondent Abdul Majeed in his capacity as General Secretary, Sattar Silk Industry Employees Union, to the appellant establishment, intimating it that a trade Union of workmen by the name of Sattar Silk Industries Employees' Union had been formed on 1st May, 1979 and the requisite papers in that behalf had been submitted to the Registrar for registration of the Trade Union. This letter is said to have been delivered by hand to the Chowkidar of the appellant establishment. However, neither the said Chowkidar, to whom the said letter is said to have been delivered, was examined nor any question put to Ahsanullah Baig, contractor of the appellants establishment, or any other witness regarding receipt or delivery of this letter to the appellant establishment. In any case, this letter by itself does not controvert the resignations and the payment vouchers which bears the signatures of the respondents. It may be mentioned that the said letter was issued before the respondents had resigned and been paid their dues.
Consequently, the letter in question merely discloses the intention of the respondents to establish and register a Trade Union of workmen. The second circumstance taken into consideration by the learned Labour Court in not relying on the resignation documents and the payment vouchers is that according to him the letter from the General Secretary of the Union dated 2nd May, 1979 was sent to the management one day after the respondent Abdul Majeed is said to have tendered his resignation. The resignation of Abdul Majeed and payment vouchers in respect of him are dated 29th April, 1979 and hence the letter. If at all sent to the appellants establishment, was sent on the third day of the resignation. It is not known what .Circumstances intervene in-between to make Abdul Majeed to send a letter in question but from the said letter it is not possible to draw the inference that the resignations and the payment vouchers are not genuine. The respondents educated as established from their signatures on the resignations and the payment vouchers. The signatures on the payment vouchers are on revenue stamps. It is difficult to believe as is pointed out by this Tribunal in the case of Abdul Mannan v. Advanced Textile Mills, decided on 29th January, 1980, that an educated person will not sign on blank pieces of papers and particularly vouchers bearing revenue stamps. There is another circumstance which contradict the assertion of the respondent that they were made to sign on blank vouchers and blank papers at the time of their entry into service. According to them other workmen had also been made to so sign such papers at the time of entry in the service. However, no other worker was examined in support of this contention. Finally it may be pointed out that the payment vouchers are supported by the entries in the cash registers and the payment registers of the respondent, establishment showing full payments to the respondents in full and final settlement of their claim. The respondents having voluntarily resigned and having been paid their dues in full and final settlement have no further claim on the appellants establishment.
3. For the reasons given by me above, I would reverse the decision of the learned Labour Court and allow the appeal. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.