' This appeal arises out of a decision dated 30-4-1998 passed by the presiding Officer of the 5th Sindh Labour Court at Karachi in Case No,136 of 1993.
' The brief facts of the case are that on 2-7-1993 the appellant filed an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations ordinance 1969 against the respondent for seeking reinstatement in service with full back benefits for the alleged illegal termination of his service.
2. As alleged in the application, the applicant joined the respondent hotel as a Waiter on Ist June 1982, and on completion of probationary period he was confirmed. In September, 1985 he was promoted as a Captain.
3. It was alleged in the application that on 12-4-1993 the appellant was called by the Security Officer (respondent No,2) who obtained forced resignation from the appellant by detaining him in his office for about 2-1/2 hours (from 3-30 p.m. To 6-00 p.m.) The appellant, however, continuously attended the respondent hotel but he was gate-stopped and not allowed to enter. On 17th April, 1993 the appellant submitted an application for the grant of time card which was refused by the respondents by letter, dated 27th April, 1993 as the appellant had already resigned. It was thus alleged-by the appellant that he was refused duty since 14th April, 1993 without any cogent or valid reason; no resignation was submitted by him on 12th April, 1993 or at any time thereafter. The appellant gave grievance notice dated 28-4-1993 to respondent No,1 which was received by the respondent on May 2,1993 which was duly replied by the respondent by their letter, dated May 9,1993, whereby the various allegations contained in the said notice were denied and it was asserted by the respondent that the appellant had submitted his resignation voluntarily on April 12, 1993.
4. The appellant in support of his application under section 25-A filed his affidavit-in-evidence, while the respondents have filed affidavits in evidence of respondent No,2, Director Safety and Security and that bf Arshad Ali, Director Personnel and Development.
5. The learned Labour Court framed the following issues.
(1) Whether the applicant had resigned voluntarily or resignation was obtained by the respondent No,2 under pressure, coercion, intimidation?
(2) Whether the applicant is entitled for reinstatement in service with full back benefits?
(3) What should the order be?
' The learned Presiding Officer gave his finding on all the issues in negative and dismissed the application.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance went through the evidence led in this case. The most crucial date in the case is 12th April, 1993. When the appellant as alleged by him, was sent for by the Security Officer through a "Chit" and obtained his resignation forcibly under duress and coercion. But the said "Chit" was not tendered in evidence. When I asked the learned counsel for the appellant about it he stated that the said "Chit" was returned by the appellant to the Security Officer which, again, is not proved. It is also noticeable that the appellant in his letter dated 17-4-1993 was completely silent about the alleged incident. This piece of substantial evidence, being very much proximate to the crucial date 12-4-1993, directly goes against the appellant, as it makes no allegation at all of the alleged incident. Exh. R/16 is the resignation dated 12-4-1993 which has been addressed to the personnel Director of the respondent hotel wherein it was stated "1 would like to say that I am not capable for this post due to my physical constitution. Please accept my resignation." The receipt of the letter in the personnel Department is stamped as 13th April, 1993.
7. Mr. M.A.K. Azmati learned counsel for the appellant stated during the course of his argument that the appellant physically is very lean and thin. In fact, he stated the example of Quaid-e-Azam to his physical constitution. This statement of the counsel also goes to support the reason of his resignation as stated by the appellant himself about his physical constitution/condition.
8. It is noticeable as admitted by the appellant in his cross-examination that he did not give in writing about the alleged incident to the General Manager or to the Director and that he neither filed any complaint before any authority to the effect that he was forced to resign by the hotel management, nor he filed any such case before N.I.R.C. He also failed to lodge any complaint in the Police Station for the alleged wrongful confinement nor lodged any F.I.R. Against the Security Officer (respondent No,2) on 12-4-1993 or thereafter. The appellant also failed to produce any evidence to support his allegation that he was subjected to physical confinement in the Office by the Security Officer.
9. For the aforesaid discussion, I find no force in the appeal, which is dismissed.