' This appeal arises from the decision, dated 11th February, 1981 passed by the Learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 4, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re-instatement was dismissed.
2. The appellant according to his case was employed in 1978 and worked upto 22nd March, 1981.
According to him 23rd March, 1981 was general holiday and when on 24th March, 1981 he reported for duty he was not allowed. According to the case of the respondent, the appellant was employed on 1st March, 1980 and left service on 15th March, 1981 by tendering resignation Exh. R.
1. The resignation is not dated although an order is written on it in the following words "paid off on 22nd March, 1981". The appellant denies the resignation Exh. R.
1. Although, he admits his signatures on it. He also denim that Exh. R.
1. And Exh. R.
2. Are in his handwriting. This is not the case of the respondent that application for service Exh. R. 2 and resignation Exh. R.-1 are in the handwriting of the appellant as mentioned above. According to the appellant Exh. R.
1. And Exh. R. 2 bear his signatures but the writing is not in his handwriting. Obviously, the appellant is literate person but question arises why he did not make application for service and executed the resignation in his own handwriting. Manifestly both the documents Exh. R. 1 and Exh. R. 2 are in the same handwriting. According to the dates of the orders given on the two documents they are the resignation is about one year older than the application for service. The order made on application for service Exh. R. 2 says that the appellant was accepted in service w,e,f, 1st March, 1980. The order made on the resignation shows that the appellant was paid off his dues on 22nd March, 1981. This is not understandable firstly why the appellant did not write both the documents himself and further that why services of the same person were utilised for scribing the two documents. To me it appears that both the documents were prepared at one and the same time. The colour of the ink with which they were written as the same as well as the colour of the ink with which the appellant put his signatures on them is the same. The kind and quality of the two papers on which documents Exh. R, and Exh. R. 2 are written is the same. The punch holes and tearing marks show that the two pieces of papers were put in the file at one and the same time and were punched at one and the same time. If the four corners of the two papers are set together, the punching holes accurately coincide. The tearing marks on the right side also coincide. On the right bottoms corners of both the papers are not in slanting manner and both coincide. In the middle of the right side the papers are a lit curved inside and the curves are accurately coinciding. Likewise the right upper corners also coincide. Both the papers have vertical folding marks in the middle and the said folding marks also coincide. I have indicated the places with red ink where the two papers get similar punch holes and tearing marks. As such documents are not prepared in the presence of the person whose signatures are received, he is not in a position to know how and in whose presence they were prepared, therefore, he is not in a position to produce direct evidence on the record and in such cases only circumstances are to be considered to find out the real truth. The circumstances mentioned above clearly show that the signatures of the appellant were received on the two papers Exh. R.
1. And Exh. R. 2 at one and the same time when these papers were blank. This is the reason that the contents of these documents are not in the handwriting of the appellant. The circumstance which shows that the signatures of the appellant were received on blank papers is that the signatures do not appear below the name of the appellant but they are somewhat in the middle. The fact that the two writings do not bear the dates of their execution further shows that they were prepared to be used at a time suitable to the respondent. If the application for service had been given by the appellant on 1st March, 1980 there could be no reason why the application should not have borne the said date. Likewise if the resignation had been genuinely executed on 22nd March, 1981 there could be no reason why the applicant should not have put the said date under his signatures. As now a days relations between the employer and the employee do not remain cordial for a long time and there are difficulties for the employer to terminate the services of his employee, therefore, some employers have developed a practice to get resignations executed or signatures of the person to be employed received on blank paper at the time of allowing him service in order to write the resignation over his signatures and to use the resignation at the convenient time suitable to the employer. If the two documents had been executed with the gap of one year it was not possible to use same kind and quality of papers having coinciding punch holes and tearing marks.
This circumstantial evidence supports the case of the appellant to the effect that his signatures were received o Exh. R.
1. And Exh. R. 2 when they were blank and that he did not consciously execute resignation Exh. R.
1. Needless to say that a person who badly needs employment but readily agrees to put signatures on blank paper when there is a condition precedent that if he would not sign he could not get employment. On account of the discussion made above, I am quite satisfied in my mind that the appellant did not give resignation and that his signatures were received on blank papers which were afterwards converted to resignation Exh. R. 1 and application for service Exh. R. 2 and that most probably this was done at the time the appellant was given employment.
3. The appellant and his witness stated that more than 50 persons were working: in the respondent industry and thus West Pakistan Industrial and Cemmercial Employment (Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is applicable to it. Since the appellant did not give resignation, the termination of his service is in violation of Standing Order No, 12(3) inasmuch as there is no written order of termination nor any reason was given for the termination. The provisions of Order 12(3) are mandatory, therefore, since they were not complied with, the services of the appellant do not stand terminated and he continues to be in service. Needless to say that his service could be terminated by only a legal order.
4. As a result of the observations made above, I accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned order direct his reinstatement with effect from 15th March, 1981 with back benefits.