' This is an appeal against the decision dated 6-10-1977 of Punjab Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad.
2. Jan Muhammad, respondent was employed as a Weaver in the appellant's Factory. It was alleged by him that on 30-4-1977 the appellant with the help of some vagaponds' gave a beating to him and obtained his thumb-impression on a blank paper by force although he used to sign. He was then locked-out with effect from 1-5-1977. He served the appellant with a grievance notice on 8-5-1977 and, thereafter, filed a petition under section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 on 18-5-1977. The respondent denied all the allegations and contended that Haji Qadir Din, father of the appellant had no connection with the Factory. The appellant also averred that the W.P.
Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 did not apply to the Factory. He asserted that the respondent had resigned from service of his own accord. Before the Labour Court the appellant did not argue on the preliminary objections, but simply asserted that the respondent had thumb-marked his resignation chit with his own free-will. The learned Labour Court did not accept the plea of the appellant and accepted the petition of the respondent and ordered his re-instatement with back benefits.
3. Aggrieved by the above decision, Muhammad Afzal s/o Haji Qadir Din, Proprietor, Afzal Textile Factory, Faisalabad, appellant has preferred this appeal.
4. From the perusal of the record I find that the respondent, who appeared as P.W.1, stated that on 30-4-1977 at about 5.45 p.m. He was called by Haji Qadir Din in his office, where his two sons Afzal and Aslam were present alongwith two other vagaponds. Haji Qadir Din asked him to put his thumb-impression on a white paper but he refused, and thereafter, the people present there put a cloth round his neck and also twisted his arms. In that position they tried to obtain his thumb- impression of his right thumb, but somebody advised them that left thumb-impression should be marked instead of right thumb. On the next day he made a report to the police, the copy of which is Exh. P.1. In his support Abdul Aziz, who appeared as P.W.2 stated that the respondent had worked in the appellant's Factory for about eight or nine months, that at about 6.00 p.m. One Ghafoor, a worker in the Factory, informed him that the respondent was being beaten by the appellant, that when he (the witness) came there he saw that the respondent was being dragged towards the gate of the Factory, that the arms of the respondent had been twisted towards his back and that his thumb-impression was obtained near the main gate. He categorically denied that the respondent had resigned from service.
5. In rebuttal Haji Qadir Din stated that the respondent had manhandled his son Afzal and that he informed the police, which came there. He also stated that the respondent's nephew was present there armed with a knife in his hand and at the sight of the police he ran away. He further stated that the respondent had thumb-marked his application of resignation and had received Rs. 122 after executing the receipt Exh. R.1 before the arrival of the police.
6. The receipt Exh.R.1 shows that it was executed by one Abdul Hamid and not by the respondent.
This shows that the receipt was concocted. Further it is difficult to believe that the respondent would resign an hour before the arrival of the police, especially when according to the appellant, he had manhandled his son Afzal. From the above, it appears that the thumb-impression on the resignation was obtained by the respondent by coercion.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that even if his plea that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from service, is not accepted, the services of the respondent could has been terminated without any enquiry being held against him, because in view of the second proviso to section 1(4) of W.P. Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, the Standing Order 15 of the said Ordinance would not apply, because there were less than forty-nine workers employed in the appellant's Factory. In this connection he referred to the statement of the respondent, wherein he stated that there were thirty-seven workers working in the Factory.
Therefore, no enquiry was necessary. This contention has no force, because Standing Order 12(4) would still be applicable, wherein it is laid down that in case of misconduct the services of a permanent or temporary workman cannot be terminated, otherwise than in the manner prescribed in Standing. Order 15 and as such enquiry would be necessary as prescribed in Standing Order 15, as already held by me in the case, Messrs Ittehad Steel Re-Rolling Mills, Rawalpindi v. Jalal Khan PLJ 1978 Tr. C. (Labour) 122.
8. I, accordingly, uphold the decision of the Labour Court and dismiss the appeal.