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-151 of 1976, heard on 26th October 1976.
---- S. 25-A-Dismissal for misconduct- Contentions: (1) no grievance notice served on employer respondent; (22) worker appellant caving made similar applications to National Industrial Relations Commission and in other Labour Court and rendering it illegal to proceed with all applica tions simultaneously-Held: Postal receipt for grievance notice produced by worker-Substantial proof of service of notice-Difference of dates in notice and postal receipt of no consequence-Fact of no other case being pending admitted, no question of conflict of decisions-Mere pendency of various applications also no justification for dismissal of application-Parties could at most move for stay of same matters or transfer of matters to same Court.
Wast Ahmed for Appellant.
Raza Abbas Naqvi for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 26th October 1976.
This is an appeal under section 37 (3), I. R. O. against the order of the Labour Court No. 11 dismissing the application made under section 25-A, I. R. O.
2. The appellant was in the employment of the respondent. On account of soma ac 7f misconduct the appellant was charge-sheeted and subsequently dismissed from service. Aggrieved by this, tire appellant sent a grievance notice dated Ist August, 1975 by registered post on 2nd August, 1975 and thereafter made the application under section 25-A, I. R. O. to the Labour Court.
3. The application was resisted. It was pleaded that no grievance notice was served upon the respondent. Secondly, the appellant had made similar applications to N. I. R. C. and in other Labour Court and, therefore, all the applications could not be proceeded with simultaneously.
4. The learned Presiding Officer upheld the objections and dismissed the application. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal had been filed.
5. On perusal of the record and proceeding and hearing the arguments I am of the view that the learned Presiding Officer clearly erred in coming to the conclusion that grievance notice was not served. The postal receipt dated 2nd August, 1975 for the notice dated 1st, August, 1975 was produced. This was a substantial proof of the contention made on behalf of the appellant that the grievance notice was sent. It seems that the learned Presiding Officer was misled on account of the two dates of the notice and the postal receipt. There was nothing unusual casting doubt upon the genuineness of the document or the contention of the appellant. It seems clear that the notice was drafted on 1st August, 1975 and was posted on 2nd August, 1975, t. e., on the following day.
6. So far the second ground is concerned it has now been admitted that no other case is pending to any other Court. Consequently, the question of conflict in decisions does not arise. Moreover mere pendency of e various applications did not justify the dismissal of the application, but at the roost the parties could move for stay of some of the matters of transfer of the matters to the same Court.
7. In the result I allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The application made under section 25-A by the appellant shall be deemed to be pending and it is transferred to Labour Court No. III for disposal in accordance with law.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer