DECISION This appeal calls in question the order of the Labour Court No. III, Karachi, dismissing the petition filed under section 25-A of the I.R.O., which arose in the following circumstances:
2. It is alleged that the petitioner, a Boilder Attendant with the respondent not maintaining good health, had taken two months' leave from 3rd July, 1989 and left for Lahore for rest. On turn he had reported for duty on the 3rd September, 1989 but was not allowed to resume. He had therefore, sent a grievance notice and later filed the petition before the Labour Court.
3. The respondents' version in the written reply was that the petitioner had resigned from his job on 17-6-1989 and the proceedings instituted against them were simply malicious and blackmailing in nature.
4. The petitioner apart from himself had examined Shamshad Ali, who was the Head Time-Keeper of the respondent Organisation. The respondents had examined Tauqeer Alam, their Assistant Labour Officer.
5. The Labour Court found that the petitioner had resigned of his own free will and volition and in the circumstances, the grievance petition; as filed, was barred by time. The latter finding, as the matter stood, was rather gratuitous.
6. The salient feature of the case is that the appellant, on his own showing, was seventy years old and was not in good health. It was because of his ill-health that he had proceeded on leave.
However, there was no proof that he had mad: an~ application and what is more that the same was granted. The appellant had stated that he had been assured of the grant of leave by the Head Time-Keeper, but Shamshad Ali, who had been examined by him, remains absolutely reticent on that score. Instead he mentions in unequivocal terms that the appellant had tendered his resignation.
7. The appellant was confronted with his letter of resignation. He denied his signature thereon. On his own showing he had taken a loan of ten thousand rupees in which connection he had made an application. He denied his signature on this application shown to him. These signatures and the signatures on Form `M', which is the register of workers attendance for the month of May, 1989, seem to tally with the signatures on the resignation letter. However, the signatures of the appellant on the appellate record are in `Urdu', giving no chance of comparison.
8. I agree with the observation of the Labour Court that the attendance card is spurious. The appellant, on his showing, had completed three score years and ten and needed rest. I am satisfied that it was he, who had resigned and the proceedings had been instituted because there seems to be some lack of agreement on his monetary entitlement in the wake of his resignation. It is not necessary to dilate on that aspect of the matter as it is not germane for this case.
9. I will, therefore, affirm the order and dismiss the appeal.