' This is an appeal against the order of learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No, VI at Hyderabad, dated 28-2-1990, whereby grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.
2. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Salim Khan, learned Advoc te for the appellant and Mr. Bashir Awan, learned Counsel for the respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. Admittedly the appellant was workman working with the respondents. He alleges that he was elected as 'General Secretary' of the Union and sent intimation on 4-4-1988 to the respondents by registered post A/D, who asked him to abandon union activities and on his refusal his services were terminated on 6-4-1988 by oral order. He states to have served grievance notice upon the respondents and thereafter filed the grievance application which was resisted by the respondents on the ground that grievance notice was not served upon them and appellant had himself resigned from the job. The respondent relied upon the alleged resignation of the appellant which has been produced as Exh. R-1. The appellant had denied the signatures on this application but learned Presiding Officer compared the signature on the resignation application with the admitted signatures on other documents on record and came to the conclusion that the signature was that of the appellant.
4. The original copy of the alleged resignation had not been produced before the learned Labour Court. The comparison of signature on photostat copy with original signature is always open to doubt. The proper course under such circumstances, for the respondent was to have produced the original and requested the Court to send signatures for comparison to some Handwriting Expert. No person had been produced in whose presence the appellant allegedly signed application, or who may be conversant with the signatures of the appellant. What makes this document more suspicious is that whereas the application purports to be dated 21-1-1988 and the notes on it also shows that appellant's resignation was accepted from 21-1-1988, but respondents witness Mr. Sharifuddin, who is owner of the respondent mill, in his affidavit-in-evidence in rebattal has stated, that respondent resigned on 1-3-1988. During the course of arguments Mr. Bashir Awan pointed out that the appellant was working in two capacities, one as a `Gardenor', in which capacity he was workman and other as Incharge of Canteen'. As Incharge of Canteen admittedly he was not a workman. Mr. Bashir Awan pointed out that there was note on the resignation application below the alleged signature of the appellant that '1-3-1988 would be his last date in the Canteen'. It may be pointed out that there is no signature of the appellant below this note. Nothing has come on record to show that this note was also written in handwritting of the appellant. Anyhow his services as workman were alleged to have been terminated on 21-1-1988 as per document Exh. R-1, when his resignation is alleged to have been accepted, which fact is contradicted by the respondent himself as pointed above. There is no other evidence in proof of the alleged resignation. The finding of the learned Labour Court that the appellant has resigned is accordingly set aside.
5. The, second ground raised is that the respondent had not received the grievance notice. The copy of grievance notice has been produced with grievance application Exh. R-2 alongwith postal receipt and registered A/D receipt. It is addressed to Manager M/s. Abbasin International, Dhabeji District Thatta and A/D receipt shows that it was received by some body on the aforesaid address.
The respondent admitted in the cross-examination that the address of the factory as 'Abbasin International. Dhabeji' was correct but alleged that A/D receipt did not bear signature of the Manager of the factory. Generally in offices and factories the letters are received by lower staff members, who are also agents of the employer. Even otherwise a notice which is sent on correct address by registered post would be deemed to have been received by the addressee on said address. The Factory Manager has not been examined to deny the receipt.
6. In view of the above discussions, the impugned order of the learned Labour Court is set aside and the appellant is ordered to be reinstated in service. The appellant has also claimed back benefits but there is no evidence whether in the intervening period the appellant was gainfully employed or not. Mr. Bashir Awan states that factory was closed during the disturbances in June, 1989. Under the circumstances, I award fifty per cent back benefits to the appellant. Order to be implemented within two months.