' The appeal is directed against the decision dated 15-8-1996, by which the learned Labour Court, Faisalabad, had accepted the grievance petition, filed under section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, by Saeed Akram. Director of the concern (Madni Ghee Mills, Faisalabad) has come up in appeal to this Court.
2. Saeed Akram was employed as a worker in the appellant mill on 1-7-1993 and his services were terminated on 23-6-1994. According to the appellant concern, Saeed Akram was a temporary employee, and he had also submitted resignation Exh. R-1 and the resignation was accepted by the employer, vide Exh. R-1/B, and he, therefore, could not make grievance of the fact that his services had been dispensed with in an unlawful manner. Saeed Akram takes up the plea that he was a permanent workman, and this fact is said to have not even been denied by the management of the concern, through the testimony furnished by the Chief Executive, Mr. Muhammad Tahir, R.W.
1. He also maintains that his signatures on a blank paper had been obtained by the management, at the time of his employment, and the same might have been misused and converted into a resignation by the management. The so-called resignation was not at all voluntary, and had not consciously and knowingly been submitted by the employee, according to the latter.
3. The learned lower Court has observed that it does not sound plausible that the employee would have himself staged exit from the service and submitted his resignation, during these days of unemployment, with the added scourge of the rising prices of commodities of daily use. I, however, fail to find any force in the observation made by the Court below to the effect that solitary statement made by a witness of the concern, without any corroborative evidence in support, would not be sufficient to establish the fact of the employee's resignation. He had also made a statement alone and no other person had appeared as a witness for him. Certain documents, Exhs. P-1 to P-7, had, of course, been tendered by him in evidence to prove his plea. But it has been deposed by R.W.1 that the resignation Exh. R-1 had been tendered before him by one Shahbaz, Time Office In charge, who continued to be in service. When the Chief Executive approved or accepted the resignation, on 23-6-1994, by writing an order in red, Exh. R-1/B, Saeed Akram was not in attendance. The order passed by the Chief Executive had been delivered to Mr. Shahbaz, for passing it on to the employee, as also all the other branches of the concern.
4. R.W. 1 also stated that Saeed Akram had lodged a complaint to the Labour Department that his resignation had been forged or fabricated, and the Department had held an inquiry in that regard.
The witness denies that the alleged resignation had been found to be fictitious or forged, and Saeed Akram's reinstatement in service had been ordered. Another important piece of evidence, coming forth from the mouth of Muhammad Tahir, R.W. 1, although strictly relevant for the other Appeal (No, 224 of 1997, Director, Madni Ghee Mills v. Tanvir Ali), is to the effect that the other concern of the same proprietor, Punjab Oil Products, which was situate 32 kilometers away, was closed down and was proposed to be set up afresh at a site close to the Madni Ghee Mills, and four employees for the defunct concern were absorbed in the appellant concern, and this measure had also entailed ouster of Saeed Akram from service, as he was from amongst the junior-most workers.
5. Here it may be mentioned that if services of Saeed Akram had been dispensed with, in consequence of retrenchment, pursuant upon the closure of the concern, Punjab Oil Products, provisions of Standing Order 11-A onwards (up tile Standing Order 14, West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968) had to be complied with. Standing Order 12(6) stipulates the eventuality taking place when a workman resigns from service and the services are terminated by the employer. R.W.1, however, deposes that Saeed Akram has an open offer to take up assignment afresh when the Punjab Oil Products is set up and set in motion, at the new place. This, according to the employee, is a mala fide move, since the employer has to concede in favor of an employee a number of benefits, as social security cover, gratuity, G.P.F., Old- Age benefits, etc., and he will be deprived of all these amenities and advantages, if he is re- employed by the concern, in the other concern, or in the same factory, the Madni Ghee Oil Mills.
This depicts feudal mentality of the proprietorship/management of the two concerns, belonging to the same person or partnership.
6. It has also been submitted by the employee that if the appellant concern truly believed that he had tendered his resignation from service, there was no occasion and no reason, why an offer should have been made to him for re-absorption in the set-up. The insinuation is that the so-called resignation had actually been obtained from the employee in a fraudulent manner, and it was all a fabrication. It, however, appears that genuineness of his signatures on the resignation Exh. R-1 is not really disputed by Saeed Akram. What now remains to be determined is whether he had signed the script, being well-aware of its contents, and in a willing manner, or it was all a farce, in the nature of a contrivance on the part of the mill management to get rid of the worker, reason may be any. The employer will establish the voluntary character of the resignation, and the employee will endeavor to show to the Court and prove that the alleged resignation was in the nature of a fabrication. For this purpose, the parties may choose to lead further evidence; and Saeed Akram may also think over the offer made to him by the mill management, for his re-employment.
7. I will set aside the judgment of the learned lower Court, on acceptance of appeal, although with no order as to costs. The parties shall lead further evidence to prove or disprove the incidence of resignation, and the learned Labour Court will endeavor to dispose of the case finally at an early date, as the employee has made grievance of the fact that he has really been wronged and has been out of job, over a long time, for no fault on his part. The parties shall appear for further proceedings in the Court below on 23-7-1997.