Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Appeal No. KAR-116 of 1976, heard on 17th November 1976,
----S. 25-A read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 11 Retirement-ties judicata---Appellant's application previously filed dismissed by Junior Labour Court on ground of appellant having reached superannuation age and thus justly retired from service Subsequently on knowing retirement of another worker of his own category having been withdrawn after correcting his date of birth allegedly wrongly recorded. appellant moving fresh grievance notice Application, held, clearly barred by principle of res judicata and cancella tion of retirement of another worker could not give appellant a fresh cause of action.
Wasi Ahmed for Appellant.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 17th November 1976.
This is an appeal against the order of the Labour Court dismissing the application filed under section 25-A of the I. R. O., 1969.
The appellant was in the service of the respondents. In the record, the year of the birth of the appellant was shown as 1914 as the basis of the application form which he had filed at the time of his appointment. Accordingly, he reached 60 years of age on 1-7-1974 and, therefore, he was retired from service having attained the age of superannuation. Aggrieved by this, he made a representation that he was born in the year 1918 and not in 1914 as shown in the record. His representation was rejected. He, therefore, moved the Junior Labour Court under section 25-A of the I. R. O. but the application was dismissed on the ground that the appellant was born in the year 1914 as shown in the record. He did not file any appeal against that order of the Junior Labour Court. ,
3. Subsequently, in July, 1975, the appellant came to know that order of retirement of another Driver, Mr. Zaheeruddin, was withdrawn after the correction of his date of birth. Consequently, the appellant gave a fresh grievance notice dated 8-7-75 to the respondents but his request was turned down. He, therefore, approached the Labour Court by filing the application under section 25-A of the I. R. O. The application was resisted on the ground that the application was barred by res judicata. This plea was accepted by the Labour Court and the application was dismissed.
4. I have heard the learned Representative for the appellant and he has failed to convince me that the order of the Labour Court is open to any exception. What he pleaded was that after the cancellation of the order of retirement of another driver, fresh cause of action accrued to the appellant On the very face of it, this contention is without any fore and needs no consideration. The application was clearly barred by the principle of res judicata and, therefore, not maintainable.
5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer