' The appellant submitted a grievance petition before the learned Labour Court on 14th October, 1980, alleging therein that he was employed in the respondent mills as a weaver with effect from 20th September, 1979 but as the mills management deprived the workers of their legal rights, he raised his voice against such injustice and reported the matter to the police and the Directorate of Labour Welfare whereupon he was first pressurized to resign and since he was not willing to do so, he was illegally gate-stopped. It is further asserted in the grievance petition that the Labour Directorate had called the appellant and Seth Khalid of the respondent mills for conciliation and in those conciliation proceedings, Seth Khalid had offered him a sum of Rs, 1,000 for resigning from the mills but he had refused the offer. The learned Labour Court has dismissed the appellant's grievance petition on the grounds, firstly, that as the number of workmen in the respondent mills was less than 20, the Standing Orders were not applicable to the mills or the employees therein and hence the appellant's grievance petition was not maintainable, and secondly, that the appellant had voluntarily resigned and had been paid his dues in full and final settlement.
Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant has come up in appeal to this Tribunal.
2. I have heard Mr. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi, Advocate, for the appellant and Mr. Malik Sher Muhammad for the respondents.
3. Now as regards the point whether not less than 20 workmen were employed in the respondent mills during the relevant period, the appellant filed affidavit and also led evidence of one Abdul Hakeem, who claimed that he was employed as a piece-rated worker in the respondent mills. The appellant, in his evidence, gave the names of the other workmen and also the nature of duties of some of them. Witness Abdul Hakeem stated that 24 workmen were employed in the respondent mills but was able to give the names of only 8 to 9 workmen. The learned Labour Court did not rely on the evidence of the appellant as in its opinion he had failed to establish that the persons whom he had named in his evidence were actually employed in the respondent mills. As regards witness Abdul Hakeem, the view taken by-the learned Labour Court was that as he had failed to produce any documentary or other evidence establishing that he had ever been employed in the respondent mills his evidence was not trustworthy. In order to ascertain the correct position in this behalf the manager and partner of the respondent mills, Khalid Shafiq, was summoned and examined in this Tribunal. He produced the attendance register of the workmen of the respondent mills for the years 1978-79. According to that register the maximum number of workmen in the respondent mills was 15. No reliance can be placed on this register as it does not bear the signature or the thumb impression of any workman. The witness was specifically asked to produce the payment register but he expressed his inability to do so as according to him no such register was being maintained during the relevant period and the workmen were being paid on vouchers.
He did produce the voucher file but in the absence of any payment register it cannot be said that the vouchers file produced I this Tribunal was complete and contained the vouchers in respect of all the workmen. In the circumstances, I am inclined to accept the testimony of the appellant and his witness, Abdul Hakeem, that the number of workmen in the respondent mills was not less than 20, especially as it appears from the grievance petition and the evidence of the appellant that there were at least 2 shifts working in the respondent mills. I am, therefore, of the view that the grievance petition of the appellant is maintainable.
4. It next falls to be considered whether the appellant had resigned and has been paid his dues in full and final settlement. In support of the plea of the respondents that the appellant had resigned, Mr. Malik Sher Muhammad relied upon the resignation application, the debit voucher and the acknowledgment receipt, at pages 119, 121 and 123 of the record of the learned Labour Court. The appellant, himself, in his evidence before the learned Labour Court has admitted that the debit voucher and the acknowledgment receipt bear his signature, but has asserted that they were blank when he had signed them. Now the signature and the thumb impression of the appellant on the debit voucher is on revenue stamps. I find it difficult to believe that a literate person like the appellant who claims that he was championing the cause of the workmen, could have been so simple as to sign blank receipts bearing revenue stamps. Furthermore the acknowledgment receipt is on a printed form and hence could not have been blank when the appellant signed the same. I am, therefore, of the view that both the debit voucher and the acknowledgment receipt contained all the entries which they now bear when the appellant had signed and thumb marked the same. The debit voucher shows that in addition to his wages the appellant was paid a sum of Rs, 1,300 as ex gratia payment in respect of all kinds of dues. In other words, the debit voucher was full and final payment in respect of all claims of the appellant. Mr. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi sought to argue that as the appellant had refused to accept Rs, 1,000 in the conciliation proceedings before the Labour Directorate, it is highly improbable that he would have accepted Rs, 1,300 only a few days later from the respondent mills. I find no force in his contention. In the first place, the total amount which the appellant was paid under the thumb marked debit voucher is Rs, 1,624.32, which was much in excess of the sum of Rs, 1,000 offered to the appellant before the Labour Directorate, and secondly, the debit voucher admittedly bears the thumb impression and signature of the appellant. Furthermore, it is supported by other documents as well. I have already mentioned of the acknowledgment receipt which also admittedly bears the thumb impression of the appellant. The acknowledgment is in printed form and according to it the appellant had received all his dues including the dues on account of annual leave etc.
5. Now as regards the resignation application, though the appellant has denied that he thumb- marked or signed the same, the learned Labour Court on comparison of the signature thereon with the admitted signatures of the appellant, came to the conclusion that the signature on the resignation was of the appellant. I also have compared in Court the signature on the resignation with the admitted signatures of the appellant and am satisfied that the signature on the resignation application is of the appellant. In that resignation application, the appellant has clearly stated that he does not wish to serve in the respondent mills and, therefore, his resignation application should be accepted forthwith. It appears from the endorsement on the resignation application that it was accepted on the same date.
6. The upshot of the above discussion is that I would concur in the finding of the learned Labour Court that the appellant had voluntarily resigned and had been paid his legal dues and hence his grievance petition is not maintainable on that account. I would accordingly dismiss the appeal. .