DECISION ' Aggrieved by order, dated 25-8-1999 of Sindh Labour Court No, VI, Hyderabad, whereby his grievance petition was dismissed, the appellant Muhammadi. Gul has filed this appeal. His case is that he was employed and had been working as helper in the Chemical. Department of M/s Dewan Sugar Mills Budho Talpur, District Thatta hereinafter referred to as the Respondents Mills since November, 1987. On 10-10-1997 he was in his residential quarter when at about 11.00 a.m. Six armed chowkidars/watchmen appeared in his quarters and dragged him to the Administration Office where besides Abdul Hussain Buledi, the Admin Manager, some other officers were present. By applying physical force, they obtained the appellant's signatures and thumb-impressions on several papers. He was also paid Rs,27,222 and after throwing out his belongings from his quarter, he was turned out from the gate of the Mills. He had never resigned as was declared by the Management of the Mills. Being thus, aggrieved, he sent grievance notice to the Respondents' Mills but it . Was not responded. He, therefore, filed grievance petition with the result mentioned above.
2. In the Reply Statement filed on behalf of the Respondent Mills, the allegations of applying force to the appellant and forcibly obtaining his signatures were denied. It was further added that the appellant voluntarily tendered his resignation with request for waiver of notice period. His resignation was accepted and as requested by him notice period was waived. The appellant was not involved in any act of misconduct. Therefore, the question of holding of enquiry did not arise.
Moreover, his grievance notice was properly replied.
3. In proof of his case the appellant filed his affidavit-in-evidence and Muhammad Hussain Buledi, Deputy Admin Manager and Minhajul Haq Admin. Manager filed their affidavit-in-evidence in support of the case of the Respondents Mills. I went through these affidavit-in-evidence and other relevant documents available in the case file and also heard arguments of the learned counsel of the parties.
4. The only point to be determined is whether. The alleged resignation said to be tendered by the appellant was voluntary or was obtained by force. In this connection the important question that arose was why after all the Respondents Mills wanted to bring end to decade old service of the appellant. In para. 5 of he grievance petition the appellant has alleged that he was ousted from service because of his trade union activities of the past. There is no further elaboration of this allegation. He has neither pin-pointed the year of his hostile activities nor has he specified any particular activities which became the cause of the Manager's annoyance.. Thus, the above allegation was vague and unworthy of deserving any attention. It is equally unbelievable that physical force was applied to the appellant for obtaining his signatures and thumb-impression. He has admitted that he made such complaint to various authorities but no one listened to him. The apathy of the authorities was obvious because the allegations were not due. The Respondents Mills had no reason to adopt such violent methods for ousting the appellant from service when they could terminate his services in a normal way. Nowhere throughout the case record the Respondents Mills have expressed their dissatisfaction either with appellant's, performance or with his conduct. On the contrary the appellant's own assertions give support to the Respondents' Mills' version. In his grievance petition it is stated by him (vide para. 3) that he was dong his duties with due application of mind and utmost honesty and, therefore, his superior officers of the Respondents' Mills had no complaint against him. Again in para. 4 of the same petition he has stated that due to accident his left hand was rendered cripple in 1989, even then he was made permanent in the following year i,e, 1990. All this shows that Respondents' Mills had no or prejudice against the appellant for taking undue step against him. Even otherwise the perusal of the resignation does not raise any kind of doubt or misgiving. I am, therefore, convinced that the resignation was voluntary. Had it not been so the appellant would have even refused to accept the payment of such a huge amount of more than Rs,27,000. Therefore, the appellant's going back on resignation was clearly afterthought.
' In view of above discussion, the Lower Court's decision is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.