DECISION This appeal is directed against the decision of the learned Second Labour Court. Given on 29th August, 1982, allowing the grievance petition of the respondent workman. By the said decision the learned Labour Court has directed re-instatement in service of the respondent with full back benefits.
2. The case of the respondent is that he was recruited as weaver on 23rd February, 1981 in the appellant establishment and has been removed from service on 17th August, 1981 in utter disregard and violation of clauses (t) and (3) of Standing Order 12. On the other hand, the version of the appellant is that the respondent bad tendered his resig--nation from his job on 17th June, 1981 and had been paid all his dues in full and final settlement of his claim against the respondent corporation.
3. The conduct of the appellant throughout has been most negli--gent. On the hearing fixed for 16th August, 1981, when the appellant was required to file his written statement, he was absent though duly served. Accordingly the learned Labour Court directed that the case should proceed ex parte against the appellant. On the next hearing, namely 17th August, 1981, ex parte proof was adduced by the respondent workman. However, on the application submitted by the appellant, indicating that his learned counsel was sick on 16th August, 1981 the learned Labour Court set aside the ex parte order against the appellant and allowed the written statement to be filed by 27th September, 1981. The time for filing of written statement was extended upto 5th November, 1981, on which date the reply statement was filed. The respondent, thereafter, led evidence in support of his grievance petition but neither he nor his witness, Shirin Zada, were cross-examined as the appellant again was absent. Once more the appellant submitted an application for re--calling the witnesses of the respondent and permitting the appellant to cross-examine them. This application was also allowed and the respon--dent and his witness Shirin Zada were cross-examined by the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant was, thereafter, required to lead evidence in support of his case and though the affidavit of Factory Manager of the appellant, Muhammad Shareef, was filed but as the said Muhammad Shareef did not turn up before the learned Labour Court for the purposes of cross-examination his affidavit was rightly excluded by the learned Labour Court and the side of the appellant was closed. The appellant made one more application for referring certain documents ,to the handwriting expert for his opinion but this application was rejected by the learned Labour Court , which passed the impugned order after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the patties.
4. It is not disputed that the respondent was employed as a weaver in the establishment of the appellant with effect from 23rd February, 1981. As-already indicated the case of the respondent is that his services were unlawfully terminated on 17th August, 1981. In support of his evidence he has examined himself and Shirm Zada, an employee in the appellant establishment. It is contended by Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed Shaikh, the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent workman had voluntarily tendered his resignation and had signed payment voucher in token of full and final settlement. The alleged resignation application and the payment voucher were shown to the respondent workman during his cross-examination before the learned Labour Court but he denied having signed the same. As the appellant has led no evidence in support of his case, the version of the respondent that his services have been unlawfully terminated and that he had not tendered any resignation or been paid his dues stands uncontroverted. Even the reply statement of the appellant cannot be taken into consideration as no evidence has been led by the appellant. It was sought to be argued by Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed that the learned Labour Court should have allowed the application made on behalf of the appellant for referring the alleged resig--nation and payment voucher to the handwriting expert. As already in--dicated this application was made after the side of the respondent was closed. The appellant cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own gross negligence in failing to defend the case against him. In my opinion, the application for reference of the documents to the handwriting expert, which was made at a very late stage, was rightly rejected by the learned Labour Court
5. Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed Shaikh finally sought to argue that there was contradiction between what was stated by the respondent in his affidavit and what he denied in his cross-examination. The learned counsel submitted that in his affidavit the respondent has claimed that he had been made to sign souse bank papers and blank vouchers and when the alleged resignation and voucher were shown to him he denied that they bore his signatures. I fail to find any contradiction. Even if the appellant has been made to sign a blank piper and blank voucher it is not necessary that the resignation and the full payment voucher, which were sought to be referred by the appellant to the handwriting expert, are the same.
6. For the reasons discussed by me above, I would hold that the respondent has fully established his claim against the appellant who failed to lead any evidence in rebuttal. I would, accordingly, dismiss the appeal in limine.