' This appeal emanates from the decision, dated 31st May, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 5, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re-instatement in service was dismissed.
2. During checking of the bus conducted by the appellant amount of Rs, 110 was in excess in his person. This amount was considered to have been misappropriated. The appellant was not willing to deliver the said amount. The income of the day was not received as he was not willing to deposit the excessive amount. According to the appellant, he was taken to the police station and under threats resignation was got executed from him.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the statement of the appellant is discrepant which shows that his plea that under duress or coersion resignation was taken, is false. Learned counsel says that in examination-in-chief the appellant stated that he was taken to police station and was forced to give resignation and in order to save his skin he gave resignation but in cross- examination he stated that at the bus stand resignation was taken from him and, thereafter, he was taken to the police station. He has also argued that in the grievance petition the appellant urged that the resignation was obtained from him under the threat that he would be handed over to the police and that after getting resignation from him, he was actually handed over to the police. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel. So for as on the examination-in-chief and the cross-examination are concerned, the difference cannot be taken to be a discrepancy because a witness is entitled to correct himself while making his statement. When the correct position was suggested to him in cross-examination, he corrected himself. What he stated in cross-examination is the same what he had said in his grievance petition. Moreover, he was not confronted with the relevant portion of the grievance petition. So, he had no opportunity to explain. It does not appear correct that the appellant had given resignation voluntarily. He had refused to deliver the excessive amount as at that time there was no coercion upon him. It did not strike him at that time to save his skin and to deliver the amount. It is thus clear that he was threatened to be handed over to police and was asked to give resignation. The police investigation is proverbial in this contrary, so the appellant tendered his resignation under the said threat. From his subsequent conduct too it is apparent that as soon as he was free from the duress he sent a telegram and thereby withdrew his resignation. The resignation was, therefore, not voluntary. R. W. 1 no doubt stated so but he was an employee of the respondent and was under their influence. Moreover, he being a marginal witness to the resignation had to support its execution in the Court. I do not feel satisfied that the resignation was voluntary. Its acceptance before withdrawal by telegram was, therefore, immaterial.
4. As upshot of the observations made above, I accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, direct the re-instatement of the appellant in service. However, in the circumstances of the case, I disallow back benefits to him.