DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order of learned Presiding Officer, Sind Labour Court No. 1 at Karachi, dated 12-7-1988, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.
2. The facts leading to this appeal are that the appellant admittedly was a workman working with the respondents in its Karachi office. It is alleged by the appellant that due to misconduct of Head Katib, Mr. Waheed, he resigned from service on 20-8-1986, but, the Resident Director had called him and at his instance, he moved another application withdrawing his resignation. However, he was not allowed to attend the office. On 28-10-1986, he served grievance notice upon the respondents which was not replied and consequently he filed his grievance petition. The case of the respondents is that the appellant was transferred to Multan and consequently resigned which resignation was not withdrawn.
3. I have heard Mr. Raja Shamsuz Zaman, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Jamil Raza Zaidi, the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondents. The fact that the appellant had tendered resignation is not disputed. He claims to have withdrawn the resignation which is denied by the respondents. Apart from the oral word of the appellant, there is no evidence to show that he had withdrawn his resignation. He states to have submitted the withdrawal application to the Resident Director but he has not summoned the Resident Director or produced the withdrawal application to corroborate his oral evidence that he had submitted withdrawal application. The only point for consideration is how far the oral word of the appellant could be believed with regard to the withdrawal of the resignation. In the cross-examination of the appellant, it was suggested to him that he had resigned because he was transferred to Multan. He, however, admitted that he received such transfer order, dated 11-8-1986 on 23-8-1986 vide Exh. A.W.1/1. He also produced copy of the resignation as Exh. A.W.1/2. In this resignation he had made allegations against Head Katib alleging that he had got him transferred in order to victimize him. This Head Katib Waheed had also been examined by the respondents and he had denied the averments of the appellant and also denied that he had withdrawn his resignation.
4. From the aforesaid evidence, it is clear that the appellant was transferred to Multan and on 23- 8-1986 he had tendered his resignation. Mr. Waheed had stated that he had relieved the appellant.
There is nothing on record to show that this transfer order was withdrawn or kept in abeyance. The appellant does not alleged that he ever reported for duty at Multan. There is nothing on record to show that prior to his grievance notice, which was on 28-10-1986, he had sent any notice or letter to the respondents alleging therein that after withdrawal of resignation, he wanted to attend office, but, he was prevented to attend the office. If at all he had withdrawn his resignation, the normal course would have been for him to report for duty at Multan or at least to move an application, in writing, to the effect that he was being disallowed to attend duty. The respondents have produced the reply to the grievance notice as Exh. R.W.1/1. Which is dated 28-10-1986, wherein the appellant was informed with reference to his grievance notice that his resignation had been accepted with effect from 23-8-1986 and the letter of acceptance had been sent to him at his residential address on record.
5. The appellant has relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Muhammad Nooruddin v. K.DA. 1974 PLC page 123, wherein this Tribunal had observed that "Resignation tendered but withdrawn before communication of acceptance--workman would, in circumstances, be deemed to be in service--Acceptance of resignation after date of letter withdrawing same, was not effective." Before the appellant can invoke the benefits of this decision of the Tribunal, he had to prove that the resignation was withdrawn by him. As pointed above, apart from oral evidence of the appellant, neither there is any positive evidence nor circumstantial evidence pointing to such withdrawal of the resignation.
6. The respondents have relied upon the Division Bench decision of the Baluchistan High Court at Quetta reported in 1986 PLC 760, wherein it had been held that the workman who has tendered resignation and which has been accepted is no longer a workman and is not entitled to make petition under section 25-A, I.R.O. The petitioner could seek his remedy in a Civil Court if he could not put in his claim in any other forum." Similar view was taken by this Tribunal in the case of Noor Habib Shah v. The District Manager reported in 1986 PLC 835. In this case, this Tribunal had held that the grievance petition of the workman where he had tendered his resignation and which was accepted, was not maintainable.
7. Evidence on record clearly shows that the appellant had tendered his IC resignation which was accepted by the respondents. There is no corroborating evidence to the effect that he had withdrawn the resignation.
8. With regard to his allegation against Head Katib, we need not go into the correctness or otherwise of the allegation as the appellant had not been dismissed from service by the respondents, but he had himself resigned.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, I see no merit in this appeal which is dismissed.