MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, J.--- Through this Constitution petition, the petitioner have challenged the Decision -dated 3.12.2001 passed by respondent No. 1 in Revision Application No KAR-150/2001 whereby the revision filed by the petitioners against the order dated 31.5.2001 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No. V, Karachi was dismissed.
2. Precisely, the facts giving rise to the filing of this petition are that respondent No. 2 was employed as a Ticketing and Reservation Clerk in the petitioner's company. During the audit it was discovered that, approximately a sum of Rs.60,000/- was misappropriated by respondent No. 2. The respondent was confronted by the petitioner with this allegation which was initially denied by respondent No. 2. However, on hearing that the matter was going to be referred to the police, respondent No. 2 confessed and returned the misappropriated money. Simultaneously, respondent No. 2 is reported to have submitted resignation from service which was instantly accepted by the petitioner instead of dismissing him. The respondent No. 2 subsequently seems to have filed an application in the Labour Court under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 alleging therein that the resignation was obtained from him by the petitioners under duress. The petitioners raised the point of jurisdiction before the Labour Court and appear to have moved an application under Order VII, Rule 11,, C.P.C. As is evident from the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. V, Karachi.
3. After hearing the parties, learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that the fact as to whether resignation was allegedly obtained by the petitioner under duress, threats or in illegal manner, required to be proved by leading evidence. Accordingly, the Labour Court fixed the matter for evidence.
4. The petitioners, being dissatisfied challenged the impugned order in Revision Application which was dismissed by the learned Chairman, Labour Appellate Tribunal vide Decision dated 3.12.2001 with the following observations:- "For all the above reasons I am convinced that this is not a straighf forward case which can be decided on the ground of respondent's resignation as if it was voluntarily. On the contrary evidence is required on number of issues which need to be clarified for the purpose of final disposal of the case. Accordingly -while upholding the Order of the learned Labour Court the Revision Application is dismissed."
This decision is impugned in this petition.
5. We have heard Mr. Nizam Ali Khan, Advocate appearing for the petitioners.
6 It was mainly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Labour Court as the employee/respondent No. 2 has voluntarily tendered his resignation which was accepted. After the acceptance of resignation, respondent No. 2 has ceased to be the workman and, thus, was not competent to maintain a Grievance Petition.
He next contended that the Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining the said application.
7. We have considered the arguments advanced at the bar and have also minutely perused the order passed by the two Labour forums.
8. Section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, provides a mechanism for a worker to bring his grievance in respect of any right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law or any award or settlement. The terms and conditions of the workman are regulated under the provisions contained in the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
Ordinance, 1968. Standing Order 12 provides that if a workman is aggrieved by termination of his service or removal, retrenchment, discharge or dismissal, he may take action in accordance with the provisions of Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and seek redressal of his grievance.
9. Through it was argued on behalf of the petitioner that respondent No. 2 have voluntarily resigned from service but in the body of the petition itself the petitioner has pleaded that the resignation was submitted by respondent No. 2, as the matter was likely to be handed over to the police. It is further revealed that the resignation was accepted by the petitioner at the moment it was allegedly submitted by respondent No. 2 On the other hand, the case of the petitioner, as evident from the orders passed by the two forums below, is that respondent No. 2 has submitted his resignation under duress.
10. It is a settled principle of law that undue influence can arises if certain coercion, oppression, or compulsion is exercised to dominate the will of the other party. As a result thereof, the person concerned is not able to exercise his free volition because of mental, financial or physical distress.
Since there are controversial facts which cannot be resolved unless an elaborate inquiry is held, which necessitates recording of evidence by the Labour Court, which is seized of the matter. The orders passed by the Labour Court appears to be just and fair and cannot be termed to be without jurisdiction. The Revision was, thus, rightly dismissed. We do not find any perversity or illegal exercise of jurisdiction in the orders passed by the two forums below and, therefore, dismiss this Constitutional Petition in limine along with the listed applications.
11. Inspite of the fact that the superior Courts have deprecated the practice of fragmented decisions by the labour forums, and impugning, the interlocutory orders by filing Constitution Petitions on flimsy grounds, yet it has been observed with unease that such tendency of challenging the interlocutory orders passed by the Tribunals/Courts on untenable grounds is increasing day by day which has, on one hand, resulted into multiplicity of litigation, thereby immensely increasing the workload of this Court and, on the other hand, is inflicting agonizing injury besides putting financial burden upon the respondents in such petitions. This practice is undesirable and must be brought to an end. It appears appropriate to reproduce the view expressed on the subject by the Honourable Supreme Court in A.F. Ferguson and Co. v. The Sindh Labour Court and another reported in PLD 1985 S.C. 429:- "In our view, the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court should not normally be exercise in cases where the entire case will not be completely disposed of. This Court and even the Privy Council, has not favoured piecemeal and fragmentary decisions of causes, see Abdul Rehman's v.
Haji Mir Muhammad Khan and another, Ibrahim v. Muhammad Hussain and Nanheial and another v. Umroo Singh. In the circumstances of the present case the prayer for exercising Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court should, therefore, have been declined."
Above are the reasons for the short order dated 31.12.2001 whereby this petition was dismissed.