' This appeal arises from the decision, dated 30th October, 1979 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 1, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was partly accepted and the respondent was directed to pay an amount of Rs, 644.30 as transfer travelling allowance but the prayer of re-instatement was rejected.
2. The appellant was Accounts Officer. He was transferred to Faisalabad on 28th August, 1976 and was relieved from Lahore on 3rd September, 1976. He submitted joining report at Faisalabad but the District Manager did not allow him to report for duty. Thereafter, there had been correspondence between the two offices and ultimately it was decided on 14th September, 1976 that the appellant should be sent back to Lahore. He, accordingly, reported for duty at Lahore and submitted his transfer T. A. Bill. The appellant applied for one day leave on 1st April, 1977 for 2nd April, 1977 on the plea that he had to attend his ailing father. The leave was sanctioned. On 3rd April, 1977 another application was sent by him for leave from 3rd April, 1977 to 9th April, 1977 on the plea that his father was ill for the last two months and he had to look after him. On 9th April, 1977 third application on the same plea for leave from 10th April, 1977 to 30th April, 1977 was given by him. The applications were rejected and the appellant was informed that he was absent from duty from 4th April j977 without getting his leave sanctioned. He was directed to report for duty within three days on the receipt of the letter. On receipt of the letter the appellant instead of reporting for duty sent his resignation which was received by the respondent on 16th June, 1977. The reason for resignation was personal reasons and a request was made that the resignation be accepted with effect from 1st April, 1977 forenoon. He also requested that the condition of one month's notice be waved as a special case. A reminder was sent by him which was received on 25th May, 1977 in which it was disclosed that he had got a job in the Cotton Trading Corporation for better prospects, expecting that his resignation would be accepted. He again requested in the said letter for the acceptance of the resignation with effect from 1st April, 1977. In this letter he showed his willingness to deposit salary of one month in lieu of one month's notice. The resignation was refused on 31st May, 1977 by the respondent and the appellant was asked to report for duty within three days. The services of the appellant were terminated on 20th July, 1977 with effect from 4th April, 1977. Thereupon, the appellant served a grievance notice on 31st July, 1977 and filed the grievance petition on the ground that since he had tendered resignation, he could not be punished by removal of service.
The learned trial Judge held that the services of the appellant stood terminated on the submission of resignation and that its acceptance was not necessary. On this ground the plea for re- instatement was disallowed. When the appellant had made grievance petition under section 25-A, the respondent withdrew the order of termination and accepted the resignation.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant relying upon 1974 PLC Note 123 page 66 and PLD 1958 Kar.
75 has argued that the resignation can be withdrawn before its acceptance. The question to be determined is whether the appellant had withdrawn the resignation before it was accepted and whether the respondent could withdraw the order of termination and accept the resignation. The appellant did not state in his statement that he had ever withdrawn the resignation. Learned counsel for the appellant also has not argued nor has shown any document to the effect that the resignation was ever withdrawn by the appellant before it was accepted. In answer to the letter by which the resignation was accepted, the appellant wrote a letter Exh. P-l4 but in this letter also he has not mentioned that he had earlier withdrawn his resignation, but rather he said that by the submission of his petition for re-instatement, the resignation did not exist in the eyes of law. This is noteworthy that the grievance petition for re-instatement was made against the order of termination and not by way of withdrawing the resignation. It is thus clear that the resignation before it was accepted was never withdrawn rather every time the appellant had been pressing the respondent to accept his resignation. The order of termination was withdrawn since it had been challenged in the Labour Court, therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent committed any illegality in doing so. Since the appellant himself had challenged the order of termination and before that had been insisting upon the acceptance of his resignation, he could not feel dissatisfied when his request for withdrawing the order of termination and accepting the resignation was acceded to. Principally I agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that a resignation can be withdrawn before its acceptance, but in the present case as it was never withdrawn, it was rightly accepted, and thus no question' of re-instatement arises and the learned lower Court rightly disallowed re-instatement. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed.