' Grievance petition filed under section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, by Afzal Aziz Khilji, against the Habib Bank Ltd., Faisalabad, was dismissed by the learned Punjab Labour Court No, 4, Faisalabad, on 22-7-1993, which order has been assailed in appeal.
2. Afzal Aziz Khilji had been employed as Cashier by the Habib Bank on 10-4-1994. In October, 1990 he was served with a charge-sheet, Exh. P-1/R-1, with the allegation of having defrauded the bank of different amounts, during the period April, 1988 to July, 1990, when he was posted at Panwan Branch and Manan Wala Branch. A regular inquiry was held by Mr. Rafiq Shahid, an officer of the Bank, and the official was found to be guilty. Second show-cause notice (Exh. 12) on 30-6-1991 was served upon him. He submitted his explanation/reply, Exh. P-3, on 14-7-1991. He was removed from service on 4-3-1992.
3. According to the appellant, the impugned order dated 4-3-1992 was passed pursuant upon the alleged resignation tendered by him, although the same had been obtained from him under duress and coercion and its acceptance was in contravention of the provisions of section 15(1), Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and, as such, his removal from service was a nullity in the eye of law. The resignation is shown to have been tendered on 15-12-1990. The appellant states that he had been called inside his office by the Zonal Chief and under threat of police action against him, in presence of others, resignation was secured from him, which was not a voluntary act on his part, nor had he addressed the resignation to the Circle Executive, who is shown to have accepted it, after a long time. As he was an active member of the C.B.A. Union, his activities were not liked by the Bank management, and as he did not desist despite warnings, the management decided to procure from him resignation under pressure.
4. Actually, according to the appellant, some senior officers of the Bank, as late Nazir Ahmad Tariq, Manager, Mananwala Branch, Mr. Taj Din, Manager, Panwan Branch, Ch. Abdul Haq and Ch. Faqir Hussain, officers respectively of Mananwala and Panwan Branches, were involved in cases of forgery, fraud and embezzlement of bank amount and had even been found guilty. They were each punished by way of stoppage of bonus, increments, promotion, etc., for a period of two years. They used him as a lever and he was made a scapegoat. In actual practice, according to him, the bank had not suffered any loss, owing to any act on his part, as the entire amount had been recovered.
5. It is to be noted in this behalf that in evidence Muhammad Afzal Aziz has himself made a statement and has examined no other person as a witness, although he was an active member of the union, as is claimed, and if actually he was innocent, sympathies of the entire working class must be with him. In his statement dated 12-11-1992 he has said that when he came out of the office of the Zonal Chief, Mr. Muhammad Latif Tahir, he came across office-bearers of the union, present outside, and on their inquiry he made them aware of the incident. In the grievance petition, filed on 27-6-1992, in the Labour Court, in para. No, 2 ground (c), it has been stated that, on 15-12- 1990, when he had appeared before the Zonal Chief, he had been asked, in presence of 'union people' to resign from his job and the resignation actually was the outcome of duress, undue influence and pressure. In his statement, made as PW. 1, it has been alleged by the official that he had even been beaten up by three armed persons, who had caused him injuries with butts of guns.
I must say that the statement does not at all inspire confidence. The officers could not dare do all that, in the premises of the office, when there were also present around members or office-bearers of the union. He also did not get himself (admittedly) examined by a doctor and did not lodge a report with the police, as regards the beating allegedly administered to him. In cross-examination he has said that he had not made a complaint against the incident to higher Authorities of the Bank. He, however, states to have made his union aware of the incident, 10/12 days afterwards, adding that he had not remained in his senses, after having been subjected to torture on 15-12- 1990.
6. He had been appearing before the Inquiry Officer alright and the inquiry did not end in a day.
After having submitted his resignation, he did not withdraw it, although it was not promptly accepted. He also admits having deposited with the bank a large amount of Rs,1,17,000, for embezzlement of which he had been charged. Of course, he does not conceal that he had tendered the resignation and had also made deposit of the amount, in order to save his skin, but it has been averred by him that the amount had been made available by Messrs Taj Din, Nazir Tariq and Faqir Hussain, officers of the bank, who had themselves been responsible for misappropriation of the money. This part of the statement, however, is not to be believed, as it is only an oral assertion, having nothing else in the form of evidence in support.
7. The act of the official having deposited the amount and having expressed the desire to be relieved of his duties, through the resignation tendered by him, must be construed as a confession on his part, about his involvement in the serious case of fraudulent misappropriation of money of the bank. Bank officers, above-named, had also been found guilty of involvement in the embezzlement and had been punished therefor, and as cashier the appellant also appeared to have essentially been involved in the dirty affair, incidence of which was established in inquiry, held by Mr. Rafiq Shahid, Manager, who has appeared as P.W. 2, to authenticate the proceedings and the result of the inquiry (Exhs. R-1 and 2). Correctness of the inquiry report also was not challenged.
If the official now turns round and says that it was all a force and he was absolutely innocent in the matter, nobody would believe him, since what he says in regard to the incident actually appears to be in the nature of just a fiction, divorced from reality.
6. Resignation, as is well-known, and as has also been pronounced in 1992 SCMR 3135 (Supreme Court of Pakistan), has to be intentional and voluntary. Totality of circumstances has to be taken into consideration for drawing a conclusion whether a resignation was voluntary or not, and if it was made with the intention to relinquish the office. In 1993 SCM R 2137 (Supreme Court of India), it was laid down that resignation being a unilateral act need not be accepted and it becomes effective from the date of its communication to the competent Authority; the act of relinquishment of office, however, has bilateral character and it would not be effective, unless the act is performed in actual practice. My learned predecessor had held in cases decided by him, and reported as 1985 PLC 244 and 1984 PLC 636, that resignation takes effect against the resigning official/worker, when it reaches the authority/employer, and it is not necessary that it should formally be accepted.
Although the employer has the discretion to accept or to refuse resignation, in so far as the worker is concerned, resignation would become effective as soon as it is tendered and it goes to the employer. Resignation may be withdrawn before its acceptance. If the employer, instead of accepting the resignation, passed an order of removal of the worker/official from service, the plea that the resignation had become nonexistent or ineffective was rejected and action of the employer in accepting the resignation was treated as unexceptionable.
9. Exh. P-4 is the final order dated 4-3-1992, indicating that the official's resignation tendered on 15- 12-1990 had been accepted, with effect from the same date, and he stood relieved of his duties.
The bank had also reserved the right to recover the liabilities outstanding against him, either from him or from his guarantor. Finding nothing wrong with it, the learned Labour Court had proceeded to dismiss the grievance petition; and I would endorse the decision, which is not liable to interference by this Court. The appeal has no merit and is hereby dismissed, although with no order as to costs.