' This appeal is directed against the order, dated 17th April, 1983 passed by the Sind Labour Court No, III, Karachi, dismissing the application filed by the appellants under section 25-A, I. R.
0., 1969.
2. The facts leading upto the appeal briefly stated are that the appellants were working as permanent workers in the Folding Department of the respondent establishment. Their case is that their services were terminated by a verbai order, dated 26th May, 1982 without assigning reason on their demand of their legal dues. They served a grievance notice on the respondent establishment and their grievances having not been redressed they filed application under section 25-A, I. R.
0., 1969 for reinstatement with back benefits. Their application was resisted by the respondent establishment mainly on the ground that they had voluntarily resigned on 26th May, 1982 vide their resignation letters in original at pages 117-119 on the file of the Labour Court on the plea that they were getting better service elsewhere. The learned Labour Court recorded the evidence adduced by both the parties and ultimately dismissed the application by the impugned order, dated 17th April, 1983, resulting in the present appeal.
3. I have perused the entire evidence recorded by the learned Labour Court, the appellants having examined themselves and the respondents having examined Jamilur Rehman, their Managing Director, Sardar Muhammad, their Supervisor in the Folding Department and Shakir Jamil Siddiqi their Accountant. I have also heard the learned counsel for the parties, Mr. Ali Ahmed for the appellants and Mr. Naeemur Rehman for the respondents. As admitted by the learned counsel for the parties the only question involved is as to whether appellants had voluntarily resigned or not.
What I find that their original letters of resignation dated 26th May, 1982 are available on the record, as already stated by me. There is also the order, dated 26th May, 1982 of the Managing Director of the respondent-establishment, Mr. Jamilur Rehman accepting the resignations of the letters of resignation. This order further says that the payment of their dues shall be made on 7th July, 1982.
There is no dispute that they received duff dues on this date. However, on double checking a sum of Rs, 551.52 was still found due to appellant Khalid and Rs, 414 to appellant Muhammad Salim in respect of encashment of their casual leave and annual leave, which they offered to pay. The appellants have denied their signatures on their resignation letters and they have examined themselves in support of their contention. The respondents have asserted that the resignation letters were signed by the appellants and they bear their signatures. Messrs Jamilur Rehman the Managing Director as well as Shakir Jamil, the Accountant of the respondent-establishment have deposed that the resignation letters of the appellants are signed by the appellants themselves and they had voluntarily tendered the same. The learned Labour Court under section 73 of the Evidence Act compared the admitted signatures of the appellants with their disputed signatures on the resignation letters and came to the conclusion that they were identical and that the resigration letters were signed by them and the resignations were tendered voluntarily. Under section 73 of the 'Evidence Act, comparison of the signatures by the Court itself is a valid evidence. The section empowers the Court to compare the signatures on a disputed document with other admitted or proved signatures. If on such comparison the Court comes definitely to the conclusion that the signatures on the disputed documents and the admitted signatures are identical, it may act on such comparison as a valid evidence. In this situation, I myself have compared the signatures of the appellants on their resignation letters with their admitted signatures on their application filed under section 25-A, I. R.
0., 1969, the grievance notice addressed by them under section 25-A, I. R.
0., 1969, their signatures on the entries on Wage Register as well as their signatures on their affidavits in evidence filed by them and it appears on my scrutiny as well, that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Labour Court in that respect has not been without a sound basis. To me also the disputed signatures of the appellants on their resignation letters appear identical to their admitted signatures. Accordingly, no exception can be taken to such conclusion arrived at by the learned Labour Court both on law as well as on facts. What I further find that no mala fides can also be attributed to the respondents as their Managing Director, Jamilur Rehman as well as Shakir Jameel the Accountant frankly stated in their affidavits in evidence that on double-check the above-mentioned dues were also to be paid to the appellants on account of encashment of leave, and that they have offered to pay the same to the appellants. In view of all this evidence on the record. I would find that the appellants voluntarily resigned from their employment rather than their services were terminated by a verbal order as contended by them. The impugned order passed by the learned Labour Court accordingly would not call for interference.
4. The result is that the appeal is dismissed.