ASAD MUNIR (CHAIRMAN).--- The respondent was employed as a Senior Fitter in the appellant- Company when he was issued a charge-sheet dated 19-7-2010 wherein it was alleged that the respondent was extremely irresponsible and negligent in operating the TCM Lifter on 11-7-2010 with the result that the TCM Lifter was damaged causing irreparable loss to the appellant-Company. In his reply dated 20-7-2010, the respond at disputed the allegations levelled against him. Finding the respondent's reply unsatisfactory, the appellant-Company, without holding any inquiry, terminated the respondent's services vide its letter dated 31-7-2010. A few days later, the respondent received a sum of Rs.31502 by means of cross cheque dated 2-8-2010 and also gave an acknowledgement in writing dated 2-8-2010 which reads as under:--- "This is to state that I MUHAMMAD ANWAR son of MUHAMMAD HANEEF was working with Messrs Eastern Leather Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. (Tannery) as a FITTER from 1-2-2009. That I have terminated from my services with effect from 31-7-2010. This is to state that I have received all my legal dues in full and final settlement, and I have now no claim whatsoever against Messrs Eastern Leather Co. (Pvt.) Ltd.
(Tannery) in respect of my dues or right to serve. I severed all connections with the said organization and there is no legal dues remaining paid to me by Messrs Eastern Leather Co. (Pvt.)
Ltd. (Tannery)."
2. After receipt of his legal dues, the respondent served a grievance notice dated 18-10-2010 whereby he sought his reinstatement in service on the ground that he had been illegally dismissed from service without holding any inquiry. There being no positive response, the respondent on 25- 9-2010 filed a grievance petition which has been allowed by the Punjab Labour Court No.3, Lahore at Ferozwala, through its judgment dated 10-4-2012 in terms whereof the respondent has been reinstated in service with back-benefits on the ground that he was illegally dismissed as he was condemned unheard.
3. Calling into question the legality of the learned Labour Court's judgment dated 10-4-2012, the learned counsel for the appellant, relying on General Manager National Radio Telecommunication Corporation, Haripur v. Muhammad Aslam and 2 others (1992 SCM R 2169), argued that the respondent was not a aggrieved person as he had received a sum of Rs.31502 which included one month's salary in lieu of notice and one year's gratuity and that he was estopped to agitate any grievance as he also gave an acknowledgement dated 2-8-2010 to the effect that he had received all his legal dues and had no claim whatsoever against the appellant-Company. This position is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent who argued that the receipt of legal dues or benefits does not debar a workman from seeking his reinstatement in service.
4. In the light of the arguments advanced, the only issue that needs to be addressed is whether the respondent ceased to be an aggrieved person or was estopped to challenge his termination after the receipt of his legal dues. Admittedly, an amount of Rs.31502 was paid to the respondent vide cheque dated 2-8-2010. It is also not denied that the said amount included Rs.8450 paid on account of one year's gratuity and Rs.13,000 as payment in lieu of notice pay. Through his acknowledgement dated 2-8-2010, the respondent declared that his legal dues amounted to Rs.31502 only and that after receipt of the said amount, he had no claim against the appellant- Company in respect of his service or dues. These circumstances leave no doubt that the respondent willingly received his legal dues in full and final settlement which means that the respondent had accepted the termination of his services. Quite significantly, the respondent did not disclose in his grievance petition that he had received his legal dues or had given the acknowledgement dated 2-8-2010 whereby he had declared in categorical terms that he had no claim against the appellant-Company. Evidently, the respondent was paid gratuity and notice pay only because of the settlement between the parties as otherwise such dues are not payable upon dismissal from service. Given the aforesaid facts, the respondent's dispute with the appellant-Bank stood settled as his grievance was redressed upon receipt of his legal dues. Having accepted the termination of his services, the respondent had voluntarily severed his relationship with his employer with the result that he was left with no cause or grievance to agitate before the learned Labour Court. In support, I may refer to the case reported as General Manager National Radio Telecommunication Corporation, Haripur v. Muhammad Aslam and 2 others, supra, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the following rule:--- "It is always a question of fact to be determined on the basis of record whether an employee had accepted his termination and severed his relationship with the employer. After termination of his service, out of free will, he accepted all his dues as full and final settlement of the dispute. But this act of the employee had discontinued his connection with his employer for good. After severance of such relationship there was nothing to be adjudicated upon by the Labour Court as relationship of the parties as employer and employee had ceased to exist."
5. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside with the result that the respondent's grievance petition stands dismissed.