DECISION The appellant was employed as Assistant Fitter in the respondent organization which is engaged in the manufacture of pipes. It appears that on 22nd March, 1982 a fight took place in the factory of the respondent between different sections of workmen. The appellant is alleged to have been involved in that incident and consequently he was arrested and tried by the Martial Law Court under M. L. R. 51 and M. L. R. 9 and was awarded one year's imprisonment. In consequence of his imprisonment and the fact that his services would not be available to the respondents, for the period that he was to suffer imprisonment, the respondents terminated the services of the appellant with one month's notice vide order; dated 9th June, 1982. This order was served upon the appellant on 10th June, 1982, in jail. On 2nd September, 1982, while he was in jail, the appellant sent a grievance notice to the respondents but as it produced no fruitful results he preferred a grievance petition against the respondents before the learned Labour Court on 14th November, 1982. Some two-and-half months later, on 31st January, 1983 the appellant received a sum of Rs. 16,464.71 in full and final settlement of his dues and executed a receipt on revenue stamp wherein in his own hand he recorded as follows :- The learned Labour Court, in view of the receipt of this payment by the appellant, has dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant,' relying upon the decisions reported in 1980 PLC 664 and 1931 PLC 670.
2. At the outset it may be pointed out that the order terminating the services of the appellant mentions clearly that it is termination .Simplicitor on account of the fact that the respondent was unable to keep the post of the appellant vacant for one year as the appellant was to undergo imprison--ment in consequence of his conviction by the Military Court. The order terminating the services is not only in writing and gives the reason for the termination of services but further intimates the appellant that he would be paid one month's wages in lieu of notice. The termination of services o the appellant. Thus. Is in accordance with the provisions of clauses (1) and (3) of Standing Order 12. It was held by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal reported in the case of Zulfikhar Ali v. Premier Tobacco Company Ltd. (1981 PLC 293) that an employer cannot be expected to keep the seat of a work--man vacant for an indefinite period when there is little expectation of his resuming duties within a reasonable period. Since the appellant had been awarded one year's imprisonment and during this period be could not possibly resume his duties it would be unreasonable to expect an industrial establishment to keep his post vacant for this long period. Similar view was taken by this Tribunal in the case of Mehmood Khan v. Pakistan Engineering Co. Ltd.. Decided on 28th November. 1982. In the latter case the services of the workman had been terminated because he was arrested in a murder case and was tried for that cause. 1t was held that it was unreasonable to expect the company to wait until either the appellant was acquitted of the murder charge or at least after he was released on bail.
3. There is another ground on which the grievance petition of the appellant must fail. As already pointed out, the appellant on 31st January, 1983. Had voluntarily received his dues in full and final settlement. In somewhat similar circumstances, a Division .Bench of the Karachi High Court in the case of Mirza Majeed Batg v. Futehally, Chemicals Ltd. (1973 PLC 297), held that the petitioner having received his dues in full and final settlement of his claim ceased to be an aggrieved workman for the purposes of section 25-A I. R. O., and was not entitled to maintain his grievance petition against his dismissal. Respectfully following the said decision this Tribunal in the case reported as Muhammad Siddique v. Premier Tobacco Industries Ltd. (1981 PLC 670) held that the workman. Who had received his dues in full and final settlement, was not entitled to maintain his grievance petition against the termination of his services. Mr. M. L. Shabani, however, sought to distinguish these two decisions. He submitted that in the case before the High Court, the petitioners had received all their dues, including notice pay, before approaching the High Court in the Constitutional jurisdiction. 1 am of the view that this makes little difference for the receipt by the appellant of his dues in full and final settlement was during the pendency of the proceedings before the learned Labour Court and such receipt was unconditional and without any protest or objection. The appellant, to the instant case had, thus, ceased to be an aggrieved person during the pendency of the proceedings before the learned Labour Court . In the case of Muhammad Siddiqe, Mr. M. L. Shabani submitted that there was an additional circumstance which persuaded this Tribunal to dismiss the grievance petition, which was that he had obtained employment in Libya at the instance of the company. This again, in my opinion, does not make a material difference as the basic fact on which the grievance petition of Muhammad Siddiqe was dismissed was that he had uncondi--tionally and without protest received his dues in full and final settlement. Mr. M. L. Shabani finally relied upon the decision of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in the case of Sethi Straw Board Mills Ltd. v. Punjab Labour Court (1976 PLC 901). In that case the point in dispute was whether the payment received by the respondent was total, complete or only partial and incomplete. It was held that--part acceptance of the entitlement does not imply surrender or abandonment of that part which has not been received. In the instant case there has been a total, complete and unconditional receipt of dues in full and final payment.
4. On either view of the matter, therefore, I find no merit in this appeal and would dismiss the same in limine.