DECISION This is an appeal directed against the award of the learned Presiding Officer of Labour Court No. V, Karachi, dated December 5, 1973, whereby the learned Labour Court dismissed the application of the appellant for re-instatement and for recovery of Rs. 11,531 on two grounds, namely (1) That the appellant being a Foreman was not a workman; and (2) That the cause of action having arisen on lst November 1971, his application dated 27th August, 1972 under section 25-A of the Industrial relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the Ordinance), was bad in law.
Section 25-A of the Ordinance came into effect from 13th April 1972 but the cause of action had arisen on lst November 1971 when the appellant was ordered to hand over charge. The learned Labour Court did not accept the claim of Rs. 11,531 on the ground that the appellant had failed to produce any evidence in support of the same.
2. Mr. M. M. Gilani, the learned Representative for the appellant, contended in the first place, that the learned Labour Court did not apply its mind to the evidence on the record. He contended that his client had produced a Bill which is at page 37 of the Record of the lower Court, addressed to L. K. M. C. for Rs. 11,531 dated lst November 1971, for repair of Tractor, Motor-car, Jeep and a Road Roller and also another letter dated 6th December 1972, addressed to the appellant himself reminding him about the payment of the Bill sent on lst November 1971, failing which the Company would be obliged to take legal action. These two documents cannot be accepted as the appellant admittedly, is in service of Khalid Engineering Works as a Manager. He admitted in cross-examination that he was the Manager of Khalid Engineering Works. The learned Labour Court rightly ignored these two documents.
3. In the second place, Mr. Gilani contended that his client's services have not been terminated so far, and, therefore, he continues in service. Oq the other hand, Mr. Rehanul Hasan Farooqi, the learned Representative for the respondent, in this connection, contended in the first place, that a perusal of Exh. R-4, read with the letter of appointment, would disclose that the letter dated lst November 1971, was acceptance of resignation of the appellant. Under the letter of appointment dated 19th June 1971, the appellant was appointed purely on a temporary basis for three months and his services could be terminated on 14 days' notice or in lieu thereof pay for the same period. It was later on extended up to 1st October 1971. Thereafter, it was extended by another letter up to lst January, 1972.
But in the meantime, it appears that Exh. R-4, was treated as a letter for resignation. Exh. R-4, is dated 18th October 1971. In Exh. R-4, the appellant had requested to be made permanent. The letter was addressed to the Administrator. It is pertinent to note the order of the Administrator. The order reads as under :-- "He cannot be appointed on permanent basis. In case he desires he may resign."
4. This letter was treated, it seems to me, as a letter for resignation because 14 days expired on lst November 1971. There is an office note also on Exh. R-4, which reads as under :-- "Submitted. As per your verbal order the fair order for hand over the complete charge from Mr. Ashfaque Ahmed to H.
O. is placed above for favour of signature." It is dated 30th October 1971. Mr. Farooqi, on the basis of this note, contended and submitted that I should construe this application (Exh. R-4), from the appellant as a letter for resignation, in this connection, Mr. Farooqi also relied on an order of Mr. Shahid Aziz, C. S. P., dated 6th June 1972. The relevant portion of the order reads as under :-- "Heard both the parties. This case involves two foremen of L. K. M. C. one of whom (Ashfaq Ahmed) had resigned and the other Farooq Ahmed had been turned out by the committee in 1971. The Chief Officer L. K. M. C. who has appeared before me has stated that the committee has only one vacancy and can accommodate only one of the two foremen. The cases of both the foremen are covered under the Governor's directives." The concluding portion of the order is, "Mechanical Engineer of K. M. C. will take up the case of both the parties purely on the basis of] qualification and merits, and appoint the individual on the selection basis." r 5. In these circumstances, I would hold that the appellant had volun-l tarily resigned.
6. The appeal for the reasons given above, is dismissed and the order of the learned Labour Court is maintained.