DECISION ' This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 13-12-1987, passed by the Sind Labour Court No,VI at Hyderabad, who had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969 directing his reinstatement in service with consequential benefits.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case were that the respondent claimed to have been permanently employed as Assistant Fitter in the appellants mills at Nooriabad and on 4-2-1987, he was illegally removed from the services, therefore, he had submitted his grievance petition before the Labour Court, who, by order, dated 16-7-1987, had allowed his petition with 50% back benefits. I was also the case of the respondent that in pursuance of the order of the Labour Court, on 18-7-1987, he had submitted an application for payment of the back benefits which were not paid, but, he was threatened with dire consequences and on the next day, when he was on duty, he was called in the office of Administrative Officer, Mr. Hashmi and was asked to sign a paper- showing clearance of his accounts, but, on his refusal to do so, he was made to be arrested by the Police under section 107/151, Cr.P.C. And thus had been locked up at Thana Bohla Khan Jail upto 25-7-1987, wherefrom as a result of compromise between him and the management, he was discharged from said Jail on 28-7-1987. It was also claimed by the respondent that on 29-7-1987, when, he had reported for duty he was not permitted to do so, but, instead on 30-7-1987, Spinning Master, Foreman and the Cashier had confined him in a room and then, had forcibly made to put his Left hand thumb- impression on a piece of paper, a plain voucher and a register and thereafter he was turned out of the mills gate. It was also claimed by the respondent that his alleged thumb-impressions on certain papers showing the resignation from service and receipt of all dues were not genuine and thus, forged, but, in fact he was also not paid any amount against the said voucher, therefore, being aggrieved, he had sent his grievance notice to the management followed by the present grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O.
1969.
3. It was a case of the appellants mills that as, the respondent had himself voluntarily tendered his resignation from service and had taken all his dues in full and final settlement, therefore, he was not an aggrieved person to maintain his grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969, which was liable to be dismissed. It was also submitted by the appellants mills on merits of the case that in view of an order of the Labour Court he was ordered to be paid 50% of his back benefits amounting to Rs.2,000, so when, on 19-7-1987 he had approached the management for the said payment he was advised that the amount would be paid to him within a week on which he had lost his temper and had assaulted and abused Mr. Hashmi, who, accordingly had lodged an F.I.R. With the area Police resulting in his arrest, therefore, the story concocted by him that he was confined in a room and forced to put his thumb-impression on certain papers was quite false, frivolous and baseless as it was an attempt to conceal the facts of his gross misconduct.
4. Both the parties led their evidence and they were duly cross-examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence, the present appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. Farooq A. Ghani, the learned Advocate for the appellants mills and Mr. Bashir Awan, the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case and also the written arguments, submitted only by the appellants mills. The only point to be determined in the present appeal is whether the respondent had tendered his resignation from employment and had also received his dues in full and final settlement, or not? After a careful examination of the entire record and proceedings, I would hold that there is nothing wrong with the impugned order as it is well-reasoned and full of appreciation of evidence and circumstances of the case. It is an admitted position that there is no direct authentic evidence on record on behalf of the appellants mills to prove that in his presence, either the respondent had tendered his resignation from service or he had received his dues in full and final settlement. The appellants mills had also miserably failed to produce any other specimen of signatures or thumb-impression of the respondent, available on their record, in support of their case that the respondent had tendered his resignation and had received his dues, specifically in view of the pleadings of the respondent that the alleged and so-called thumb impression alleged to have been put by him, were false and forged. In view of this position, I would agree with the conclusion of the learned Labour Court that the plea of the resignation and subsequent receipt of payment, was a concocted story only to defeat the orders of the learned Labour Court under which he was directed to be reinstated in service with 50% back benefits in a previous litigation. It is an admitted fact that the documents, brought on record to prove the contention that, the respondent had tendered his resignation and had received dues, as had been produced by the appellant mills are not genuine and as they had been in haphazard way under different handwritings, different ink and different pens, all of them made the documents suspicious and doubtful. Thus, the benefit of doubt must go in favour of the respondent. It is also an admitted position that the appellants mills could not examine the person who had signed the written statement or the affidavit before the learned Labour Court in support of the case of the management. I, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Labour Court. On the other hand, Mr. Farooq A. Ghani, the learned Advocate, for the appellants mills could not substantiate his case and he had reiterated his arguments which he had submitted before the learned Labour Court. The authorities, relied upon by him are altogether different and not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, hence, they are distinguishable.
6. For the reasons discussed by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed. The result would be that the respondent is directed to be reinstated in service with full back benefits. The amount of back benefits, already deposited by the appellants management with this Tribunal be immediately paid to him after due verification. I would also order that the appellants mills should pay the respondent an amount of Rs.2,000 as 50% back benefits granted to him by the learned Labour Court in his previous litigation and on the question of payment of which, his present litigation had arisen. This outstanding amount must be paid to the respondent and in the present case, the respondent be reinstated in service with full back benefits, within seven days from the date of this decision.