Case Details

Citation(s)
1999 SLG 896 1999 SLD 896 1999 PLC 388
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No. HYD-113 of 1997, decision dated: 14-04-1999.
DR. TANZILUR RAHMAN, CHAIRMAN

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Messrs ARMY WELFARE SUGAR MILLS

VS

RASOOL BUX TALPUR

Law:

Section:

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)---------S. 25-A---Resignation under duress---Proof---Re-instatement in service--­Employee who was relieved from service had alleged that his resignation was obtained under duress---Question of duress was a pure question of fact which had fully been proved and employer had failed to produce evidence in rebuttal---Employer having failed to prove that employee had tendered his resignation voluntarily without any coercion or duress, for domestic reasons, employee was rightly re-instated in service. M. Sadiq Quraishi for Appellant. Hamid Hussain for Respondent. JUDGMENT This appeal arises out of a decision dated 27-5-1997, passed by-the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Lahour Court No. 6 at Hyderabad in Grievance Application No. 35/95. filed by the respondent under section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance. 1969, for reinstatement with back benefits, which was allowed by, his decision, as aforesaid. 2. The facts, giving rise to the above appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent was employed as Upper Division Clerk on 1-12-1983. He was promoted as Store Keeper on 15th December. 1990 where, as alleged by the respondent, the Stores Officer became annoyed with him and consequently obtained his resignation under duress on 6-12-1994. It was thus alleged that he was forced to resign by the Stores Officer. He, thereupon. immediately went to the General Secretary of the Collective Bargaining Agent and apprised him about the said incident. The General Secretary talked to the General Manager of the appellant, who assured that the resignation, tendered by the respondent, will not be accepted and that the respondent may continue to work in the Store. The applicant continued working, when, all of a sudden, on 17-12-1994, the respondent was stopped to enter in his office and was verbally informed that his resignation has been accepted and that he was no more in the service of the appellant. The respondent sent a grievance notice which was replied. The notice and reply are on record (pages 13 and 15). Thereafter, the respondent filed a grievance petition under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969 in the Sindh Labour Court No.6,…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492