DECISION ' The appellant was working as a helper with the respondent-company since 1974. For some reasons not known he tendered his resignation on 21-1-1987 at 4-30 p.m. The resignation was given to an employee of the company and on the very next morning on 22-1-1987 the appellant sought to withdraw that resignation but this was declined, and he was not permitted to resume his duties.
This resignation shows the endorsement recommended on the very same day. Down below there is the order:- "Resignation accepted with effect from 21-1-1987.
(Sd.)
' AYAZUL HAQUE Dated 21-1-1987."
2. It is hard to believe that the resignation given by the appellant would be recommended on the same day after 4-30 p.m. And would even be accepted on that very day during the last working hour of the office. A
3. Under the West Pakistan Standing Orders Ordinance, Standing Order 12, for termination of the employment of a permanent workman for any reason other than misconduct, one month's notice shall be given either by the employer or the workman or one month's average wages shall be paid in lieu of notice. In the present case the worker wanted to terminate the employment by resignation. The resignation could not be accepted before one month's notice period. No amount had admittedly been paid by the workman in lieu of notice.
4. The employee can be appointed or terminated by the proprietor. In this case the resignation was accepted or purported to have been accepted by the Administrator on behalf of the proprietor on the basis of General Power of Attorney. The General Power of Attorney however does not specifically mention that the said Administrator could accept the resignation of the employee, as such the exercise of this power by the Administrator without approval of the proprietor would appear to be unauthorised and wrong.
5. The resignation was given on 21-1-1987 after 4-30 p.m. And was sought to be withdrawn on. 22-1- 1987 in the morning. Ordinarily within one month's notice period the resignation could have been allowed to be withdrawn but this was not done and afterwards the acceptance of the resignation was communicated to the employee by post which was returned unserved.
6. The burden of proof that the resignation was accepted by the employer was on the respondent Sindh Engineering Limited but this has not been proved by examination of the employer.
7. From the facts and circumstances of this case it appears that the management were in hot haste to get rid of the employee by any manner possible. Advantage was taken of his foolish act of submission of the two lines of resignation without considering the consequences. As pointed out above the acceptance of this resignation was neither legal nor proper and it is doubtful that all the formalities of the acceptance could be completed during the one hour left in closing of the office between 4-30 and 5-30 p.m.
8. The termination from service of the employee is therefore set aside and he is hereby ordered to be re-instated in service within 30 days.
9. As regards the back benefits the appellant himself was partly responsible for this termination and he does not therefore deserve any back benefits. No back benefits are therefore allowed.
10. The judgment of the Labour Court is accordingly set aside in view of the above order.