' These are three appeals, namely, (1) Jawad Aslam, Appeal No, KAR-154-84, (2) Manzar Aslam Qureshi, Appeal No, K AR-155-84, and (3) Syed Pervez Ahmad. Appeal No, KAR-156/84, against a common order of the Sind Labour Court No, IV at Karachi, dated 24th April, 1984, whereby the Labour Court has dismissed the grievance applications of these three appellants by one order. The facts are identical, hence, the order was common. I propose to dispose of the three appeals by this one order.
2. The facts relevant in these appeals are that the three appellants tendered resignations from the employment of the respondent establishment on 1st June, 1983, 6th July, 1983 and 26th May, 1983, respectively. The respondent management, vide their letters dated 14th June, 1983, 24th July, 1983 and 20th June, 1983, respectively declined to accept the resignations on the ground of exigencies of work. The services of the appellants were covered by the provisions of Standing Order 12 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and as such it was not open to the respondent-management to decline the acceptance of the resignations. The appellants submitted grievance notices, dated 23rd June, 1983, 8th August, 1983 and 18th August, 1983, respectively and finally the grievance petitions were filed before the relevant Labour Court.
3.. The plea of the management vide their written statement is that the grievance applications are not maintainable because the appellants were not workmen as enunciated in the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, and, therefore, the grievance petitions may be summarily dismissed.
4. At the time when the affidavits in evidence were being filed before the Labour Court by the three appellants, the management, filed dismissal orders, dated 10th January, 1984, 27th December, 1983 and 10th January, 1984, respectively. It appears that the resignations were tendered and thereafter the management held domestic enquiry ex parte for absence from duty of the respective appellant and then dismissed them for misconduct.
5. In the impugned order, the learned Labour Court has held that since the appellants were dismissed by the management and, therefore, their grievance petitions have become infructuous specially on the ground that they are no longer in service and the grievance petitions were not given with regard to their dismissal. This is in nutshell and answer of the Labour Court.
6. I have heard the learned counsel Mr. M. M. Jeelani for the appellants and Mr. H. A. Jaffery for the respondent-management.
7. Mr. M. M. Jeelani has pointed out Order 12 (1) of the Standing rders, which reads as "for terminating. Employment of a permanent workman for any reason other than misconduct, one month's notice shall be given either by the employer or the workman. One month's wages calculated on -the basis of average wages earned by the workman during the last three months shall be paid in lieu of notice. .
8. Standing Order 12 contemplates the termination of employment by either side i. e. The employer or the workman by giving one month's notice. The exception is only, made when the employer terminates the employment for misconduct. When an employee resigns and ends the employment, the only condition is that one month's notice is to be given by the employee. The word termination of employment becomes equivalent to the word resignation. The meaning of resignation, according to Oxford Dictionary is to relinquish. To surrender or to 'hand over charge. At any rate it entails the termination of service. In this particular case, therefore, the word resignation by the employee would amount to "employee terminating the service with one month's notice." The Standing Order 12 (1) contemplates this situation. Therefore, the Standing Orders are applicable.
9. The next question which is raised by the management is that the appellants are not workmen. It is stated that the appellant namely, Jawed Aslam is a Technical Assistant and was performing duties as a Designer. The Designer is a workman and it cannot be said that the Designer is Supervisory Manager or holding a post which is not a post held by a workman. By no stretch of imagination a Designer who is doing a work of manual and clerical nature, as such may be called "not workman". So also the same position is with Manzar Alam Qureshi, Technical Assistant Planner and Syed Pervez Ahmad, the Technical Assistant. Therefore, the stand taken by the management is untenable. If, they were not workmen, then, why domestic enquiry was held against them. This preliminary objection is overruled.
10. In nutshell the outcome is that the Standing Order 12 is applicable and that the grievance petitions as filed by the appellants are not misconceived. According to the impugned order the appellant's cases became infructuous because they were dismissed and they are no longer in service of the management. It may be pointed out that the appellants are dismissed much after their tendering of resignations presumably because the management thought it necessary for stigma on them for misconduct and dismissed them by an ex parte domestic enquiry. This enquiry is wholly irrelevant and not binding on the appellants who have suo mote resigned in simple terms.
There is nothing on record to show that their resignations were motivated by impending enquiry or the management has given such indication. The management has mentioned that for the exigencies of work, their resignations cannot be accepted. There is no bar according to law not to accept the resignations. Only condition of one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof is to be observed. Since the appellants have fulfilled all the conditions as contemplated under Standing Order 12, the impugned order is reversed and set aside. It is hereby ordered that the appellants are entitled to all benefits and legal dues as envisaged under Order 12 (6) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, and also for the Service Certificates.