This is an appeal against the award dated 28-2-74 of Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Lyallpur, whereby the petition under section 32 (l-A) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, filed by the General Secretary, Colony Textile Mills Tarraqi Passand Mazdoor Union, Bhakkar, appellant, was dismissed.
2. The appellant had raised five demands out of which four demands were accepted by the Management of Colony Thal Textile Mills Ltd. Bhakkar, respondent. Regarding the fifth demand, i.e. Re-instatement of four employees namely ; Abdul Majeed Niazi (Supervisor Spinning). Mohammad Yaqoob (Checker Folding), Zawar Hussain (4 Loom. Weaver) and Faiz Ullah (8 Loom Weaver), it was agreed by the parties that the Union should move the Labour Court for its adjudication.
3. From the perusal of the record I find that Abdul Majid Niazi had executed agreement Exh. R-1 dated 11-2-64 that after the payment of Rs. 7,875 in lieu of wages etc. He had undertaken to resign from the respondent mill. In pursuance of that agreement he submitted his resigna--tion Exh. R-2 which was accepted by the management.
4. Services of Mohammad Yaqoob were terminated under Standing Order 12 (ii) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 on 19-9-65.
Zawar Husain was dismissed for misconduct on 1-7-62. Faiz Ullah resigned on 24-12-72. Out of the aforementioneu persons only Abdul Majid Niazi and Zawar Husain appeared as witness. Neither Faizullah nor Mohammad Yaqoob whose reinstate--ment is being sought, appeared as witnesses nor they put any affidavit on the record in support of the claim of their re-instatement by the Union.
It appears that they were satisfied with their discharge and did not want any re-instatement otherwise they would have certainly appeared as witnesses in support of their claim. Under these circumstances they cannot be re-instated.
5. As regards the re-instatement of Abdul Majid Niazi and Zawar Husain, the learned counsel for the respondent raised a legal objection, namely that unless the discharge be proximately connected with the main subject-matter of the dispute either by direct nexus or at the very least proximity of time, it will not result in a non-employment so as to constitute an industrial dispute. In support of his contention he relied on the judg--ment of the Supreme Court in the case Karnaphully Paper Mills Ltd, v. Karnaphully Paper Mills Workers' Union and others (1961PLC991). In that case a worker was 'discharged two years before the dispute was referred to the Tribunal. It was held that the discharge of the worker was clearly not a case of non-employment qua the dispute, which arose two years after his discharge. The learned counsel also placed reliance on another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case National & Grindlays Bank Ltd., Chittagong and d others v. The East Pakistan Bank Employees' Union, Chittagong and 2 others (1961 PLC 1013), wherein it was observed: "Dismissals which had taken place five years earlier could scarcely be the subject-matter of afresh industrial dispute. The claim for re--instatement of these five workers was not within the meaning of the expression "Industrial Dispute" and therefore the Tribunal had no power to adjudicate upon them."
Finally he placed reliance on the judgment of the Industrial Appellate Tribunal, West Pakistan, in the case, Road Transport Corporation, Lahore v. General Secretary, Road transport Employees' Union and another (1970 PLC 569), wherein it was observed: "An Industrial Dispute in respect of re-instatement of workmen must be raised within a reasonable time, so that the employer of the workmen who are re-instated, is not prejudiced and so that workmen who have taken the place of the dismissed workmen are not turned out for no fault of theirs. If the delay in raising the industrial dispute is too much, the workmen, who have replaced the dismissed workmen, may have become permanent. It will not be easy for the employer to terminate the services of permanent workmen. If they do so, this may lead to further industrial dispute.
Where the Union had raised the dispute praying for re-instatement of workers dismissed 2J and 3J years ago the Tribunal came to the con--clusion that it was not a case of non-employment."
6. In the present case Abdul Majid Niazi resigned on 11-2-64 and the services of Zawar Husain were terminated on 1-7-62 on account of miscon--duct. The industrial dispute was raised in 1973, therefore relying on the aforementioned rulings, I am clearly of the opinion that the claim for re-- instatement of these workers was not within the meaning of the expression "industrial dispute" as there is no direct nexus between the discharge and industrial dispute and as such it cannot be adjudicated upon.
I, accordingly, uphold the legal objection.
7. On merits also I find that the appellant has no case at all. Abdul Majid Niazi stated that he had served the respondent mill for 7 or 8 years as technical assistant, that he was transferred to Lahore office of the mills and when that office was closed he went back to Bhakkar and when he went to resume duty in the premises of ' the mill he was conducted to the office of Mian Abdul Aziz, one of the proprietors, that i.e that office he found Mehar Mohammed Sadiq, S.H.O., Mills Manager, petition-writer, Abdul Majid Factory Manager and others, that S.H.O., directed him to do whatever the proprietors wanted, that the proprietor asked him to resign but he refused, that when Mian Abdul Aziz threatened to shoot him or get him arrested by the police he resigned, that Abdul Majid, Factory Manager, prepared draft of his resignation, the photostat copy of which is Exh. P-1, that thereafter he made a copy of that draft and signed it and that he was gain made to sign different papers prepared by the petition-writer, some of which were stamped. Finally he stated that he was victimised by Trade Union activities. In cross-examination he admitted his signatures on the agreement dated 11-2-64, the photostat copy of which is Exh. R-1. He also admitted that the resignation Exh. R-2 was written by him and bore his signatures. Slier Mohammad who appeared on behalf of the appellant stated that Abdul Majid Niazi after coming back from Lahore office had resigned from the mills and that he could not say as to whether the resignation was taken by the management, by force or that he had himself resigned. In the next breath he stated that he had seen Abdul Majeed Niazi coining out of the office of the mills Manager alongwith S.H.O. Protesting to him that his resignation had been taken forcibly and that he was ordered to quit Bhakkar.
Regarding Zawar Husain he stated that he was victimised for his Trade Union activities. Zawar Husain stated that he was turned out of the mills on account of his Trade Union activities. In cross- examination he admitted that he had never filed any petition before the Labour Court.
8. In rebuttal Abdul Majid Khan, Factory Manager, stated that the original draft Exh. P-1 of the resignation was in- his hand, which he had prepared for Abdul Majid Niazi. He denied that the resignation was forcibly taken from Abdul Majid Niazi. Regarding the presence of S.H.O. He stated that he could not recollect as to whether he was present there at that tire or not.
9. Raza Mohammad stated that he was the treasurer of the Union when the agreement Exh. R-1 was executed in his presence by Abdul Majid Niazi. He also stated that at that time he had enquired from Abdul Majid Niazi as to whether he was signing the agreement of his own free will and he replied in the affirmative. He further stated that S.H.O. Was not present there.
Mohammad Yasin, President of the Union at that time, stated that agree--ment Exh. R-1 was signed by Abdul Majid Niazi in his presence and that when he had enquired from him as to whether he had signed it of his own free will, he replied in the affirmative. He denied that he saw any S.H.O. Present there.
10. From the overwhelming evidence produced by the appellant it is clear that Abdul Majid Niazi had signed the agreement Exh. R-1 and sub--mitted his resignation Exh R-2 of his own free will. The respondent's evidence consists of witnesses who were President and treasurer of Abdul Majid Niazi's Union at that time and therefore there is no reason to disbelieve their testimony. Under agreement Exh R-1 Abdul Majid Niazi has received a sum of Rs. 7,875 in lieu of his wages etc. And now he cannot go back on it.
11. In view of the above I find no merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed.