DECISION ' The circumstances in which this appeal has arisen in short are as follows:-- ' The petitioner was working as a helper with the respondent company since 15-1-1989. It is alleged that when he reported for duty on the 14th of May, 1990 he was not allowed to work on the pretext that he had already resigned from his job and collected all his outstanding dues. He had therefore sent a grievance notice and as no satisfactory reply was given he had filed the petition.
2. He was his own witness and one Muhammad Ibrahim the Administrative Officer had appeared on behalf of the appellant. Finding the material issue in the negative the Labour Court dismissed the petition.
3. I have heard Mr. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Abdul Ghani Khan for the respondent.
4. The only point needing consideration in this appeal is whether the letter of resignation and the voucher are genuine or not?
5. Admittedly there was no motive to axe the appellant from service. All that is argued by Mr. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi is that the respondents were in the habit of removing their workers for reasons or no reason. That is not an argument to notice seriously.
6. There are a number of documents commencing from the grievance notice, the affidavit, the signature on the petition, the signature on the power of attorney filed by Mr. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi and the vouchers which bear the signature of the appellant.
7. The signatures on the voucher and the resignation letter clearly tally with the signatures on the application for employment and other documents appear to be genuine. That clinches the matter.
8. In the result the impugned order is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed.