DECISION ' This appeal from the order of the Labour Court ordering the reinstatement of the petitioner in service with full back benefits has arisen in the following circumstances: ' The petitioner had been employed as a welder on 20-7-1989. On 25-6-1990, he had sought leave of absence up to 2nd of July, 1990 on the ground that he had to attend on his son who had been admitted in a hospital for undergoing an operation. According to the petitioner leave had been recommended by the Labour Officer and when he reported for duty on the 7th of July by affixing the Eidul Azha holidays from 3rd to the 6th, he was not allowed to resume his duty. However, on the 12th of July he was given a letter as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him as he had remained unauthorisedly absent since the 25th of June. He had submitted the reply whereafter a letter of enquiry followed. It is dated 23rd of July directing the petitioner to appear before the Enquiry Officer on the 29th of July at 10-30 p.m. This letter admittedly was despatched on the 30th of July which is also evidenced by the postal stamp on the envelop. He had appeared before the Enquiry Officer on the 5th August and remonstrated that it was simply impossible for him to turn up before him on the 29th when he had received the letter on the 4th. This can be left alone as the events had taken a different turn altogether. The case of the respondent was that the petitioner had turned up on the 25th of August and of his free will and volition tendered his resignation which had been accepted. As the ties stood severed the petition did not lie. They also disputed the other allegations raised in the petition.
2. The petitioner apart from himself examined Jan Muhammad. The respondent examined Mazhar Ali Rajput their Personnel Manager. In this very context it might be mentioned that the letter of termination was sent to the Handwriting Expert and his opinion received was that it did not tally with the other signature of the petitioner. But as S.I. Mouladad the aforesaid Expert had proceeded on LPR and could not be served and remained unexamined his evidence had to be excluded and it was so done by the learned Presiding Officer.
3. The Labour Court however on the examination of a number of signatures of the petitioner on the record detailed by it and also for other reasons, reached the conclusion that the resignation had not been tendered by the petitioner and therefore ordered reinstatement with back benefit resulting in this appeal.
4. There is nothing to show that the respondent was proficient in English or even received any schooling. It is therefore somewhat strange that the letter of resignation is in English. According to Mazhar All Rajput it was accepted verbally. Admittedly no letter of acceptance of the resignation was sent to the respondent. It is also stated by him in cross-examination that the respondent was asked to collect his dues, but its nobody's case that the same was collected or paid. The respondent a lowly-paid workman must not have been in too good circumstances at the relevant moment because his son was hospitalised awaiting an operation. It is therefore rather surprising that he should not have cared to collect his outstanding dues. If he had really resigned of his own freewill and accord it will be strange in the extreme as to why he would be running from pillar to pillar post and waited on a Minister of the Government to narrate his tale of woves within 5 days thereof. The letter with his endorsement is on the record.
5. I have myself compared the disputed signature with other signatures on the record and I am of the opinion that the genuineness of the letter or resignation was rightly disbelieved by the learned Presiding Officer.
6. It was also urged by Mr. Ashraf Khan learned counsel for the respondent that as the project on which the respondent-company was working had been completed and the order of reinstatement may not be affirmed. There is nothing in the written reply or the reply to the grievance notice to show that the respondent had only one assignment to look after for aught. I know they are still in business in Pakistan. Otherwise too, there is no provision of compensation under the Labour Laws at present though it existed earlier.
' In the result the order is affirmed and the appeal stands dismissed.