1. This is a petition under section 25-A of the 1. R. O., 1969, submitted by Baahir Ahmed Blow, Room Workman of Satluj Cotton Mills Limited, Okara, for his re-instatement by setting aside the order of his discharge by resignation passed by the Management on 24-11-75. It is stated in the petition that on 14-11-75 his signatures were procured on a plain paper by Spinning Master of the Factory which was latter on completed into a resignation of the petitioner and he was terminated. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent it is stated that the petitioner voluntarily submitted his resignation which was accepted by the Management and that the plea of procuring the resignation by under-hand means is false.
2. The parties' statements have been recorded and the relevant papers carefully perused. I am of the view that the signatures of the petitioner on the resignation Exh. R-1 are genuine and exactly tally with his signatures found on his petition. The basic characteristics of the handwriting are same on both the papers. However, the fact cannot be ignored to the prejudice of the petitioner papers.
3. Petitioner that the resigning was not clearly shown to have been accepted by the competent officer of the management. Exhibit R-1 is the resignation, which was forwarded and recommended by the Spinning Master to the Mills Manager. Subsequently it is said that the recommendation was undersigned by the Mills Manager which amounted to the acceptance of the resignation. I cannot see eye to eye with this stand as it obviously does not fulfil the normal conditions of the acceptance of the resignation. In fact the acceptance of a resignation presupposes some amount of consideration by the competent officer before his accepting the resignation. Such acceptance cannot be taken for granted as a matter of course and, therefore, it is necessary that the acceptance must be shown in some suitable word or words. in the absence of even a single word indicating the acceptance of the resigna--tion it cannot be regarded to have been agreed to by merely undersigning the recommendation found on the resignation by a junior officer not compe-- tent to accept the resignation of a worker. It is always discretionary with the officer empowered to hire and fire the workers to accept the resignation of the worker or not to accept it under the circumstances peculiar to each case. His merely signing under the endorsement of his junior on the resigna--tion does neither amount to the consideration of the resignation nor its acceptance in comprehensive sense of the term. Accordingly I do not consider the resignation of the petitioner to have been accepted by the mills manager in the present case. The order of termination passed against the petitioner is, therefore, set aside and his petition accepted. He is directed to be re- instated within 15 days without any back-benefits inasmuoh as the re-instatement is based on a technical legal flaw regarding the normal accep--tance of the resignation. The file may be consigned.