DECISION The appellant, Ehsanullah, who claims to have beets a permanent workman of M/s. Anwar Textile Mills Ltd., the first respondent, filed an application under section 25-A of the I. R. O. Before the IIIrd Sind Labour Court claiming that he was gate-stopped by the first respondent on 30th January, 1977 and stopped from performing his duties and his services were unlawfully terminated verbally.
According to him no show-cause notice was given or any misconduct on his part has been established.
2. The learned Labour Court dismissed the appellant's application on the ground that he had voluntarily resigned from the service of the first respondent and his resignation was duly accepted.
He has no valid cause for grievance.
3. I have heard Mr. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi for the appellant and Mr. S. A. Akhund, Advocate, for the first respondent. The second respondent has remained un-represented.
4. The sole point which was urged by Mr. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi against the impugned order was that there was no tangible evidence to show that the appellant had tendered his resignation as claimed by the first respondent. The resignation application was produced by the first respondent before the Labour Court. It bears a thumb-impression which the first respondent claims is of the appellant. This document was sent for comparison and report to the Finger Print Bureau whose report is to the effect that the thumb-impression on the document is not clear enough to permit comparison in regards to minor details and, therefore, no opinion can be given in regard to it.
Subsequently, this document was sent for examination to Mr. Khurshid Ahmad Qureshi, Government Examiner for Questioned Documents and Ex-Director Forensic Science Laboratories who examined the same with the aid of Microscope, transmitted light and lenses, Measures and U.
V. Rays. On the basis of this examination he has reported that the thumb---impression on the document in question is of the same person who had affixed the thumb-impression on the documents which admittedly bear thumb-impression of the appellant. Mr. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi has sought to assail his evidence on the main ground that if the Finger Print Bureau was not able to give an opinion in regard to the questioned document, Mr. Khurshid Ahmad, obviously, could not be in a better position to give a confirmed opinion in regard to the identity of the thumb-impression on the questioned document. This argument over--looks the circumstances that Mr. Khurshid Ahmad had examined the document with aid of Miscroscope, Transmitted light and lenses, Measures and U. V. Rays and has also taken an enlarged composite photograph of the thumb- impression on the questioned document and the ' thumb-impression on the admitted document.
The enlarged photograph shows the two thumb-impressions in easily comparable position and the similarities in details have been clearly pointed out. An examination of the photograph supports the opinion and the evidence given in Court by Mr. Khurshid Ahmad Qureshi.
5. The second objection raised by Mr. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi is that Mr. Khurshid Ahmad has failed to establish that he was a quali--fied Finger Print Expert. This contention is equally devoid of substance. Mr. Khurshid Ahmad Qureshi, apart from being the Ex-Director of the Forensic Science Laboratories, has more than 30 years experience of examining finger prints. Furthermore, he possesses Diploma from Institute of Applied Science, U. S. A., and was also appointed as Examiner of Crime detection in Foreign Service Department. In the circumstances I am of the view that Mr. Khurshid Ahmad Qureshi is a qualified Finger Print Expert and his evidence in the instant case cannot lightly be brushed aside.
6. Even if the evidence of Mr. Khurshid Ahmad is excluded there is evidence of Mr. Abdul Qadeer, Labour Officer, and Mr. Gulzar Ahmad, Assistant Labour Officer of the first respondent, to the effect that the appellant had affixed thumb-impression on his resignation application in their presence and personally tendered the same to them This evidence cannot be ignored or brushed aside. Mr. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi assailed the evidence of these two witnesses on the ground that their evidence was contradictory. The only two contradictions he was able to bring to my notice were, firstly, that according to Mr. Abdul Qadeer the appellant had come to the Mill on 29th January, 1977, whereas according to witness Gulzar Ahmad the appellant had not come to the Mill after the day he had resigned, and secondly, that according to witness Abdul Qadeer the resignation application was submitted through the Shift Incharge but according to Gulzar Ahmad he had taken the application of the appellant personally to the Labour Officer, Abdul Qadeer Khan. As regards the first contradiction it is possible that whereas Abdul Qadeer Khan may have seen the appellant in the Mills on 29th January, 1977, because he was asked to come on the following day to collect his dues, Mr. Gulzar may not have seen the appellant as he did not work in the Mill on that day. As regards the second contradiction, it is in fact no contradiction, as it has been explained by Mr. Abdul Qadeer that though the resignation application was submitted to the Shift incharge it was brought to him by Mr. Gulzar Ahmad.
7. It was also contended by Mr. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi that it is unlikely that the appellant could have submitted his resignation on 28th January, 1977, which was a Friday and an off-day. The evidence, however, shows that the said date was an off-day for the appellant but the general holiday then was on Sunday and consequently the Mill was open. There was nothing unusual in the appellant coming to the Mill on 28th January, 1977, on which date the Mill was open, and submitting his resignation and demanding his dues, specially in view of the fact that apparently there was some urgency from his point of view as appears from his resignation. The further circumstance which confirms the fact that the appellant had submitted his resignation is that from 8th June, 1977, he was admittedly employed in the Kotri Textile Mills. He would not' have joined service in that Mill within such a short time if he had not resigned from services of the respondent.
8. I am, accordingly, of the view that there was ample evidence to justify the decision of the learned Labour Court that the appellant had resigned from the service of, the first respondent. I, accordingly, dismiss the appeal.
Appear dismissed.