DECISION ' This appeal which has been filed by Messrs Prsim Textile (Pvt.) Ltd; has arisen from the order, dated 8th March, 1999 whereby Third Sindh Labour Court Karachi accepted the grievance petition filed by respondent Taleh Muhammad, with order that he be reinstated with full back-benefits.
2. The appellant's case is disclosed in their written statement is that respondent Taleh Muhammad had resigned from his employment and was paid all his dues and therefore, he was barred from invoking jurisdiction of the Labour Court. On the other hand the grievance petition instituted by the respondent Taleh Muhammad in the lower Court shows that he was employed in the respondent's establishment as Time-Keepter/Gate-Keeper since 2-1-1993 and as he made repeated demands to the said employers for giving him his legal rights including the Cost of Living Allowance of Rs,300 per month from 1st March, 1997, they got annoyed and terminated his services on 22-6-1998 by verbal Order. He served grievance notice, dated 19-8-1998 through Registered Post Acknowledgement Due but with no result.
' I have heard the arguments of the appellant's Advocate Mr. Rizwan Ahmed and of Mr Shamsher Khan Representative of the respondent and have also carefully gone through the relevant material brought on record in support of the parties's respective cases.
4. The real controversy between the parties is whether the services of respondent Taleh Muhammad came to an end due to his resignation as has been pleaded by the appellants or on account of termination of his services which is the case of the respondent. Obviously the burden was on the appellants to prove their plea that respondent Taleh Muhammad went out of their services in the wake of resignation tendered by him. In support of their case the appellants inter alia have relied upon the affidavit-in-evidence of Malik G. Jewani admittedly their General Manager. He has no doubt stated in his affidavit that the respondent had tendered his resignation.
But in view of vehement denial of the respondent, his solitary word cannot be accepted to have proved the factum of respondent's resignation. In this connection two documents A.W.1 and A.W.3 are important, the first mentioned document is said to be the resignation of the respondent Taleh Muhammad and the second document gives the break-up of the dues allegedly paid to him in consequence of his resignation. Since the respondent has denied the existence of both the documents the burden heavily lay upon the appellants to prove that the documents not only existed but also they bore the signature of the respondent. On close perusal of the alleged resignation, it appears that it is addressed to Manager Mumtaz Apparel (Pvt.) Ltd; rather than to the appellant's company. Mr. Jewani in course of his cross-examination has admitted that Mumtaz Apparel is registered as a separate factory with which the appellants have no concern. In view of this admission by the only witness of the appellants it remains a mystery as to why the respondent would send his resignation to Mumtaz Apparel instead of appellants company. Furthermore, the appellants have not stated on oath that alleged signature of Taleh Muhammad on both these documents was really his signature. The learned Advocate of the appellant's counsel while arguing the case made a request that Hand Writing Expert may be called to give evidence as to the signature of the respondent Taleh Muhammad on the said two documents. When he was asked why such move was not made in the lower Court, he had no reply. If the appellants genuinely pleaded that the aforesaid two documents carried the signature the respondent Taleh Muhammad they should have made proper application to the learned Labour Court for calling the suitable Expert but admittedly no such application was made in that Court. Therefore, the faint request for the appellant's Advocate made in this Court was afterthought. I have closely compared the admitted signature of the respondent Taleh Muhammad appearing on his affidavit-in- evidence at page 19 of the lower Court's record and also on grievance notice at page 11 of the said Court's record with his alleged signature on his so-called resignation (A.W.1 and A.W. 3) and have come to the conclusion that they do not tally with the admitted signature of Taleh Muhammad.
5. It appears from the document of alleged resignation that apart from Taleh Muhammad three workmen had also tendered their resignation by the same document. But somehow the appellants did not deem fit to produce any of the remaining three workmen in evidence to disprove the respondent's claim that he had not resigned from service but rather his services were terminated by the appellants. Thus, besides the word of the appellant's General Manager there is absolutely no other evidence to prove their case that the respondent went out of services in consequence of his alleged resignation. Even otherwise it does not appeal common sense that in absence of any reason the respondent would quit the appellant's service by tendering resignation and even if it is believed for a moment why should he turn round to disown the resigantion and would resort to litigation for his reinstatement in service.
6. It is admitted by Mr. Jewani, General Manager of the respondent that the respondent had made application before the Commissioner of Wages for his alleged rights. This admission supports the respondent's case that his services were terminated because he repeatedly made demands to the appellants for giving him rights including payment of Rs,300 per month as Cost of Living Allowance.
' In view of above discussion I have come to the conclusion that the Labour Court has rightly allowed the grievance petition and order the reinstatement of the respondent Taleh Muhammad with full back-benefits and the decision of the Labour Court in this regard is upheld. As a result the appeal is dismissed.