DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order, dated 7-12-1989, passed by learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No, VI at Hyderabad whereby grievance application of the appellant was dismissed.
2. I have heard Mr. Ahsanul Haq Siddiqui, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Syed Fasahat Hussain Rizvi, learned counsel for the respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. The brief facts of the case appear to be that the appellant was admittedly a workman employed by the respondents. He is alleged to have been removed from service without any order in writing on 7-5-1988. After serving grievance notice upon the respondents he filed grievance application before the learned Labour Court which was resisted by the respondents on the ground that the appellant has himself resigned from service.
4. This Tribunal had sent, at the request of the parties, the disputed signature for comparison with the admitted signatures of the appellant to the handwriting expert. Mr. Chughtai, the handwriting expert to whom the disputed document used to be sent for comparison has since died and the name of no other private handwriting expert was brought to the notice of this Tribunal Consequently the documents were sent to police handwriting expert alongwith three speciemen signatures of the appellant. However, the papers were sent back by the A.I.-G. Police, Criminal Division, Sindh, Karachi who required 30 to 35 specimen signatures of the appellant. Usually three signatures are sent for the purpose of comparison. This unusual demand of the A.I.-G. Police indicates that probably police handwriting expert is avoiding to do the comprison of the signature on disputed document. The parties, therefore, agreed that the reference to the handwriting expert may be withdrawn.
5. The main question that requires consideration is whether the appellant himself resigned or he was orally removed from service. The alleged resignation of the appellant had been produced as Annexure R/3. The appellant denies his signature on this document. Thus there is oral word of appellant against the oral word of respondent's witnesses as to whether the appellant submitted the resignation. The Court or Tribunal can itself embark upon the comparison of disputed signature with the admitted signature of the appellant or other documents. In fact the learned Labour Court did compare the signature and came to the conclusion that the alleged signature of the appellant on the resignation was that of the appellant. However, before I enter to compare the signature the circumstances of the case would have to be kept in view to adjudge as to which party is speaking truth and which version looks more probable under the circumstances of the case. Admittedly the appellant had filed a Grievance Petition No, 35 of 1988 in the learned Labour Court for his alleged removal from service on 11-2-1988. This grievance application was withdrawn by the applicant on 20-4-1988 when the Advocate for the respondent gave statement in the Court that the appellant had so far not been terminated and he was welcome for duty. The application was withdrawn after obtaining aforesaid statement of Advocate of the respondent. This statement and order of Court has been produced as Exh. R/1. Thus the appellant was reinstated after 20-4-1988. His grievance appears to be that because he was not given full dues for the period for which he was out of service after 11-2-1988, he demanded the same and, therefore, he was again orally removed from service on 7-5-1988. He served grievance notice upon the respondents which is dated 26-5-1988, Exh. A/1.
6. The question arises as to whether a person who gets reinstatement through the Court would voluntarily resign within one month of reinstatement. The answer would obviously be 'No', unless there were special circumstances which prompted the appellant to tender the resignation. No such special circumstances have been brought out. Again if it is accepted the appellant had voluntarily resigned on 7-5-1988, it does not appeal to reason that just within three weeks viz. On 26-5-1988 he would serve grievance notice upon the respondents protesting against his illegal removal and also give reason as to why he was removed.
7. There is another circumstance also which has to be taken into consideration. Mr. Abdul Qadeer, Manager of respondent-establishment had admitted in the cross-examination that if the worker resigns from the service he deposits Attendance Card with the management. Admittedly original Attendance Card was not deposited by the appellant with the respondents but he had produced it in the Labour Court as Exh. A/4. Mr. Abdul Qadeer had admitted that it was the original Attendance Card. He, however, explained the reason for non-deposit of Attendance Card, by stating on 7-5- 1988 the appellant had moved an application Exh. R/4 alleging therein that his Attendance Card has been misplaced and he may be issued duplicate. It may be pointed that the appellant had also denied his signature on this R/4.
8. The witness of the respondents has not stated that he was conversant with the signature of the appellant or the appellant had signed the resignation or other documents in his presence. Under the circumstances the word of the appellant would obviously have more evidentiary value.
9. The respondents have also produced one Payment Receipt Exh. R/5 purporting to bear the signature of the appellant wherein he is said to have received Rs,1,877.16 and this receipt also bears printed writing 'that appellant had no other dues outstanding against the respondents'. The appellant has also denied the signature on this document. This document also does not appear to be beyond suspicion. The alleged signature of the appellant is only on stamp and it does not bear any date. During the course of service the appellant must have signed number of receipts and the stamp bearing his signature from any of such receipt could have been removed and affixed on this document.
10. The main document is Exh. R/3. Its careful examination would show that some effort had been made to put signature as more pressure of the pen appears to have been applied and the ink is little spread. The signature on Exhs. R/3 and R/4 also differ in the sense that on R/3 dots over {{URDU TEXT}} shows two dots above one dot (...) whereas in signature on R/4 it shows one dot above two dots (::). This is a glaring difference between the two documents produced by the respondents of the same date allegedly to bear the signatures of the appellant which further supports the circumstantial evidence as discussed above which point out to the fact that the appellant had not voluntarily resigned as alleged by the respondent. The appellant would have filed Grievance Application No, 35 of 1988 only after serving grievance notice upon the respondent alleging he was illegally removed. The respondent gave statement through the Advocate on 20-4-1988 that the services of the appellant had not been terminated. Had they taken this stand in reply to the grievance notice the appellant would not have filed Application No,35 of 1988. This circumstance also reflects upon conduct of the respondents.
11. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances discussed above the version of the appellant appears to be more probable and believable. I, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the learned Labour Court and direct his reinstatement in service.
12. With regard to the back benefits the case has taken long time because of the unfruitful reference to the handwriting expert. Equity and justice require that the employer is also not unduly punished. I, therefore, award the appellant fifty per cent back benefits. The order to be implemented within one month.