DECISION Tabassum Sultana had been working as Steno typist with the I.M.T. Associated Tractors Ltd, Multan Road, Lahore. She according to her assertion joined the service of the respondent as Steno typist on 18-2-1984. She stated that she was employed on the remuneration of Rs,1,000 per mensum.
However, she was orally told at the' time of employment that her remuneration would be increased after probation period and satisfactory service on her part. She was confirmed in service after six months of recruitment. However, no increase in pay was effected. She represented to the General Manager (Finance) verbally for the increase of her pay. But no attention was paid to this request.
Thereupon she tendered her resignation on 22-12-1984. She asserted that it .Was a conditional resignation saying that if her pay was not to be increased, then this would be treated as her resignation and it should be accepted. However, her pay was increased by Rs,665 per mensem with retrospective effect from the month of October 1984. She was paid the arrears of pay through Petty Cash Voucher. This increase in her pay, therefore, rendered her resignation null and void being conditional. However, her services were terminated in April 1985 on the basis of that writing of her. She alleged that the note at the foot of the resignation saying that if her pay was not to be increased, then this writing should be taken as her resignation and it should be accepted, was torn off at the time of accepting this resignation. In this way, the condition written in the resignation had been detached to show that it was a pure and simple resignation on the part of the petitioner and to get rid of her. The reason for this action on the part of the management was that her services had earlier been terminated as having not been required. This was agitated again by the petitioner through the Labours Union working as C.B.A. In the organization of the respondent. The C.BA Union represented to the management that she should be taken back or they would protest against it.
This caused the management to take her back and then the management took out on her old writing of conditional resignation bearing the note of condition at the bottom of the writing and accepted it as a pure and simple resignation and turned her out of service. So she agitated against it and issued a grievance notice to the management. The management did not agree that the resignation had not been tendered by her or that the resignation was conditional and they tore the conditions off which was at the foot of the resignation. So no redress of grievance was there on the grievance notice. The petitioner, therefore, brought this grievance petition challenging her termination of service on the part of the respondent as illegal, null and void. She has stated that the order of termination dated 30-4-1985 was mala fide and was designed to extend the legal cover to the termination order dated 4-6-1985, which was in fact illegal. It was stated as earlier detailed out that the resignation dated 22-12-1984 submitted by the petitioner was conditional and to be operative only if the salary had not been increased. The salary of the petitioner had been increased by Rs,665 w,e,f, 1-8-1984, so the resignation became ineffective and inoperative. It stood withdrawn on the fulfilment of the condition of increase in her remunerations. She has assailed the order of acceptance of her resignation as order of dismissal and the same having been passed without observing the legal formalities. She asserted that she had been victimised on account of her lawful trade union activities also due to the personal vendetta of some officers of the department, who were opposed to her. The termination of service order was against the principles of natural justice.
She, therefore, prayed as under:- "In view of the above, it is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the termination order dated 6-4-1985 and the office order dated 30-4-1985 against the petitioner may kindly be set aside and petitioner be reinstated to her job in the respondent establishment with full baek benefits."
2. The petition was contested by the respondent maintaining that there was no vendetta of some officers of the respondent's organization against the petitioner. The petitioner was employed on a consolidated salary of Rs,1,000 per menses with the condition that if she would be confirmed after the probation period, then she would be appointed in the Grade of Rs,1,000-70-1,350/80-1,750. She was never given any verbal assurance by any of the respondent's employee whether officer or otherwise that her pay would be increased on satisfactory performance of duty and completion of the period of probation. It was further stated that the petitioner had tendered her resignation unconditionally and of her free will. It was not correct that there was a note at the foot of the resignation that if her remunerations would be increased, then this writing be not treated as her resignation, and that the note had been torn off by the management and then the resignation was accepted to star clear the labour laws. It was also denied that the petitioner in any way has been victimized.
3. The study of the pleadings brought out the following points:-.
(i) That the petitioner was given a verbal assurance at the time of her employment that her remunerations would be increased on satisfactory performance of duty and on completion of the probation period.
(ii) That the petitioner on the successful completion of her probation period represented to the management to abide by verbal assurance and the management did not do so.
(iii) That on having become hopeless about the abiding by the promise of the management, she tendered her resignation, which was conditional that if her pay according to the verbal assurance had not to be increased, then it should be taken as her resignation. Since the management in the meantime had increased the remunerations of the petitioned, so that writing became ineffective, null and void and could not be later on acted upon to dispense with the services of the petitioner.
4. There is no direct evidence pertaining to the verbal assurance extended by the management to the petitioner at the time of her employment. So one has to look into the circumstances to find out, if the assertion of the petitioner was correct or fortified. The direct or indirect evidence about the verbal assurance in the increase of the pay on the completion of probation period or satisfactory performance of duty has got to be the service record of the petitioner with the respondent or the correspondence of the petitioner on the point. The petitioner herself has not put in any such writing or proof of such circumstance. However, she had been cross-examined by the respondent's counsel and she has been confronted with her own writing on the subject. It was Exh. R-1. This writing has been admitted in cross-examination of Tabassum Sultana to be her writing. She moved it for the purpose of increase in her pay. This was not dated by Tabassum Sultana herself. However, this application was recommended by the. General Manager Finance and the said General Manager dated his note of recommendation as 31-5-1984. So it appeared to have been moved on or before 31-5-1984. This writing was moved by Tabassum Sultana, when there was no controversy or difference of opinion regarding the pay and assurance about the pay on the part of the respondents. Tabassum Sultana herself by her writing has contradicted herself, which was as follows:- "At the same time it was committed to increase my salary on completion of the probation period on 18-5-1984 to as PA.--G.M. Finance."
5. This clearly conveyed the sense that Tabassum Sultana would be made PA. To G eneral Manager, Finance on the completion of probation period on 18-5-1984 and thus she would have increase in her pay. But if it was not done, then there would not be any increase in her pay. This action was not an assurance and any commitment, which was imperative on the part of the management. Then there was another writing of Tabassum Sultana, which was Exh. R.D on the file.
Tabassum Sultana, petitioner in this writing has nowhere asserted that she had been assured at the time of entry into service that her pay would be increased after successful probation period of three months and so it should be kept by the management. On the other hand, Tabassum Sultana has in this writing requested as a matter of favour that she had improved her qualifications and she had improved her worth by independently handling the routine work, so she should be rewarded for that in the Scale of PA./Secretary/Steno to the Senior Manager (Parts). This went against the petitioner. Had she been assured of any thing as asserted by her, then she should have mentioned that assurance in this writing. This writing was addressed to the General Manager, FA.C.
He turned down it maintaining that it could not be alone, as it would cause heart burning among other employees of the respondents. This was dated June 24, 1984. Tabassum Sultana has been confronted with another writing of her, which was dated 24th of June, 1984. It was Exh. R-G on the file. It was addressed to the General Manager. Tabassum Sultana, petitioner in this writing clearly stated that she has cleared her M.B.E. Examination by getting 71% marks. She also asserted that she has completed her three months' probation period in May 1984. So she requested that she be confirmed in her appointment. She also requested that her salary be raised on a reasonable Grade on the plea that she had been working efficiently and dealing with the office routine work on the level of P.A./Secretary/Steno to Senior Manager (Parts). In this writing also she had been only urging and requesting the management to increase her remunerations in view of her good performance of duty. She nowhere in this writing asserted, re-called or demanded of the management that she had been definitely assured of increase in her pay on the successful completion of probation period and that oral assurance be abided by the management. So all these writings proved and pointed out to the circumstance that there was no verbal or off the record assurance given to the petitioner for an increase of her pay on the successful completion of the probation period. Once this conclusion was arrived at, then the other conclusion followed logically, i,e, the petitioner never made her resignation conditional as asserted by her. Had it been so, she should have incorporated that main and substantive reason of her resignation in the main body of the resignation and not mentioned it as a footnote in the resignation. Even if it be admitted as correct, then 1 am doubtful, if foot note of this type could make the resignation conditional and on the fulfillment of that condition as asserted by the petitioner it was rendered ineffective, null and void and not to be acted upon and operated upon.
6. The other circumstance proved by Tabassum Sultana, petitioner was the payment of increased pay to her. She has tendered a Photostat copy of voucher in proof of this. It was Exh. PX on the file.
But strangely enough this payment voucher did not and does not bear the signatures of any authorised person of the respondents, who made the payment. Such like payments have got to be signed by the authorized person and it was not there. It has not even been stamped by the respondents' Payment stamp. Even the signatures of Tabassum Sultana on this payment voucher were not genuine. Tabassum Sultana has placed so many documents on the file, which she has signed herself. She everywhere signed her name as Tabassum Sultana. She had nowhere put her signatures as pure and simple Tabassum. But this Exh. PX mentioned the word "Tabassum" as signature of the petitioner. A comparison of the writing Tabassum as signatures on Exh. PX with her admitted signatures on Exh. RE and even on grievance petition would clearly show and prove that the word "Tabassum" on Exh. PX has not been in the hand of the petitioner herself. The direction, flow and characteristics of the word "Tabassum" as signatures on the grievance petition and on Exh. RI, Exh. RD and Exh. RE would bring out the world of difference. They are clearly apparent to a naked and ordinary eye that they were by a different person and not by Tabassum Sultana. Had this Exh. PX been a genuine document, then I fail to understand what hurdle was there in the way of Tabassum Sultana to get the original of this document through this Court from the respondents.
The respondents on the other hand have rebutted this document by producing the receipts of payment of Tabassum Sultana Exh. RA and Exh.R B. They are for the months of January and February 1985, respectively. The pay according to these receipts of Tabassum Sultana was Rs,1,150 per menus. She was actually paid Rs,1,044 (off Rs,104) after deduction of Income-tax. So it was wrong to say that the condition of increase of pay of Tabassum Sultana had been fulfilled and her writing being conditional had become null and void.
7. However, one thing I have not been able to understand. Tabassum Sultana, petitioner had resigned according to the note of Managing Director/General Manager, Finance on or before 20- 12-1984. But this resignation of hers was not accepted till 30th of April, 1985. This keeping of resignation pending for four and a half months had not been explained by the respondents. The respondents had admittedly terminated the services of the petitioner vide order dated 6-4-1985.
This order of termination of services of the petitioner had been withdrawn. The reason for withdrawal had been stated by the respondent/Chairman, Z.Z. Ahmad, as under:- "Miss Tabassum Sultana's services were terminated vide our letter/order No, 011/A/IMT, dated 6-4- 1985. She desires that the said letter/order No, 011/A/IMT, dated 6-4-1985 be re-called and instead resignation submitted by her accepted forthwith. She further desires that condition of one month notice/or payment of one month's salary in her case be waived. The request appears to be reasonable. The letter/Order No, 011,'A/IMT, dated 6-4-1985 is hereby withdrawn and the resignation submitted by Miss Tabassum Sultana daughter of Mian Nazeer Hussain is hereby accepted with immediate effect. Her request for waiver of condition of one month's notice or deposit of an amount equivalent to one month's salary is also accepted
8. This writing then had clarified and well-met the above mentioned argument about the acceptance of resignation in May, 1985. This clearly explained the situation. Strangely enough this letter Exh. PZ had been produced by Tabassum Sultana herself, while appearing as P.W.1. But she has not said a single word in rebuttal of this. In view of this, it was quite clear that Tabassum Sultana has resigned herself for reasons best known to her. It was wrong to say that she had been victimized on account of her labour union activities, as no proof of it was there. In view of this, the abovementioned questions went against the petitioner. The petitioner had not been able to prove her contention that she had not resigned and her old resignation had been taken out and accepted to victimize near. The petition, therefore, has no force and is hereby dismissed.