DECISION This appeal calls in question the order of the Labour Court by which the petitioner was reinstated in service with full back benefits. The facts forming the background of this case, in short, are as follows.
2. The petitioner was employed as an Assistant by the respondent Corporation. It appears that the respondents had circulated a memo. In the month of August, 1989 offering voluntary retirement with extra benefits to all of their employees. This offer of golden shake hand scheme was open upto the 20th of August and it was on this date that the petitioner had exercised her option. She has, alleged that she was tricked into submitting this application. However, the very day she had notified to the authorities her desire to withdraw this application in writing. The withdrawal was not acted upon and it is alleged that on 24-8-1989 the following order was communicated: "Your resignation tendered on 20-8-1989 under voluntary retirement scheme with extra benefits has been accepted with effect from today the 24th August, 1989 (F.N.). You, therefore, stand retired from P.M.D.C. Service forthwith. The payment of your service dues shall be settled in due course as per rules/entitlement."
3. The petitioner had in the wake of this letter sent a grievance notice and later filed the petition before the Labour Court.
4. The petition came to be resisted by the respondent Corporation on a number of grounds.
5. The petitioner was her own witness and Syed Muhammad Taqi, the Manager of the respondents, appeared on behalf of the other side.
6. The learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No.V, Karachi, allowed the petition reinstating her in service with full back benefits.
7. The allegation that the respondent was made to sign the resignation letter through coercion by a colleague is nothing short of what is called a cock and bull story. The record shows that there was a move for shifting the Head Office from Karachi to Islamabad and it is easy to conceive that the respondent, who is a married lady, would have been too happy to avail of this opportunity. She herself mentioned in her withdrawal letter that she had a talk with the Secretary of the Corporation, who had come to Karachi, and had been assured by him "that the female employees of the Corporation would not be shifted to Islamabad". Obviously she was double-minded as the letter shows, but on later thought and because of the encouraging talk, she decided to retrieve the letter.
It is native to suggest that Shareef whom she named could have resorted to any coercion or duress during the working hours. She could complain about this to her superiors and colleagues and if necessary she could lodge information with the police authorities. Obviously the insinuation cannot stay put and was a mere embelishment.
8. The short question involved in this appeal is whether the resignation, before it was accepted could validly be withdrawn by the respondent. The other ground about the status of the respondent was not pressed.
9. Mr. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi, learned counsel for the respondent has cited Abdur Rasheed v. K.R.T.C.
1981 PLC 915, Muhammad Nooruddin v. K.D.A. 1974 PLC 123 and Muhammad Khan v. Pakistan through Ministry of Interior PLD 1958 Kar.
75. The last mentioned judgment is from a Division Bench of our High Court and has clearly held that a resignation can be withdrawn or recalled before it is accepted by the competent authority. It was open to the employee to change his or her mind so long he or she is in service but not after his termination. It was further found that no resignation was effectual until it had been accepted or approved. Reference was made to the case of Richeal v.
Bishop of Oxford LVI LTR (ICS.) 539 wherein it was held that "speaking generally a resignation is revocable until it is accepted" as there was power to recall and locus poenitentiae was still there, but there could be no revocation after that was completed. The citations by Mr. Iqbal Afridi, learned counsel for the appellants Corporation namely Abdul Waheed v. M. Rafi 1990 PLC 1158, Central Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Mukhtar Hussain 1980 PLC 1203 and Riaz Ahmed v. Manager, Bhanaro Textile Mills Limited 1992 PLC 701 are hardly relevant and in the main lead to the same conclusion as in the authorities referred on behalf of the respondent.
10. In the result the appeal stands dismissed.