DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order dated 22-3-1989 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No, VI, Hyderabad, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant.
2. The brief facts of the case appear to be that the appellant was admittedly a workman employed by the respondents. He alleged that he was gate stopped on 6-10-1988 after return from leave which was granted to him from 26-9-1988 to 3-10-1988. The respondents however claimed that appellant resigned vide letter which is annexure as Exh. R/5. The appellant served grievance notice upon the respondents and then filed grievance petition before the learned Labour Court.
3. The appellant is not present and the Counsel for the appellant has sent telegram for - adjournment. However, the case is quite old viz. 1-1/2 years old as such I have gone through record and proceedings of the case. Mr. Qadam Rasool Qadri, Personnel Officer who is present for the respondents has been heard. He had filed his affidavit in evidence in the Labour Court.
4. It will be seen that most of facts are admitted. The only question which requires decision is whether appellant had resigned as per Exh. R/5 or not. It has been denied that this resignation bears the signature of the appellant. The learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that the signature on this resignation tallies with the signatures of appellant on other documents. The respondent did not examine any person in whose presence the appellant signed the resignation.
Mr. Qadam Rasool Qadri who was examined before the learned Labour Court has not stated, that the appellant had signed in his presence or that he was conversant with the signature of the appellant. The respondent did not send the disputed and other documents for comparison of signature of appellant to the Hand Writing Expert. Furthermore, I find that copy of the resignation, which was produced before the learned Labour Court was photo copy of the original document.
The comparison of signature on a photo copy with original signatures is always open to doubt and such comparison is not a conclusive proof of the signature of the appellant on disputed document.
5. The document itself looks suspicious as it does not specifically show the appellant had resigned but only shows that due to some unavoidable circumstances, he could not work and therefore the one month's notice be accepted. It does not bear any date under appellant's alleged signature. It bears the date of acceptance as from 6-9-1988. If this application was treated as resignation, then it was accepted from 6-9-1988 whereas in the reply statement the respondent states that appellant gave notice of resignation from 6-9-1988 to 5-10-1988. No order in writing was given to the appellant accepting his resignation from 6-10-1988. The order on the application however, shows, that his resignation was accepted from 6-9-1988. There is no evidence that he was paid one month's salary in lieu of notice.
6. The respondents have denied that the appellant had attended the office since 27-9-1988, which in other words would mean that he performed duty after 6-9-1988 when the alleged resignation was accepted. There is no convincing evidence on record to prove that the appellant had resigned.
Under the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. The appellant is ordered to be reinstated in service with 50% back benefits. The order is to be implemented within one month.