Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑73 of 1976, heard on 26th November 1976.

‑‑ S. 25‑A‑Industrial dispute‑Contention of no opportunity being given to appellant to rebut allegations and to show that cheques alleged to be handed over to appellant either accepted under protest or were not at all received or encashed‑--Appellant's counsel admitting actual receipt of cheques and their being encashed---‑Objection also raised for first time after lapse of 18 days‑Objection, held, rightly disallowed by lower Tribunal.

Izhar Ahmed for Appellant.

Abdus Samad for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 26th November 1976.

This is an appeal against the order of the Labour Court dismissing the application under section 25‑A, I. R. O. on preliminary objection.

2. The appellant was in the employment of the respondent and his services were terminated by way of retrenchment. Two cheques dated 3rd March, 1976 were sent to the appellant towards his dues. The appellant encashed the cheques by opening an account in the bank. However, on 27th March, 1976 he sent a grievance notice to the respondent complaining against the termination of his service. Thereafter, he filed the application in the Labour Court.

3. A preliminary objection was taken that the application was not maintainable as the appellant had accepted cheques and encashed them without any protest and he could not be permitted to re‑agitate the matter after lapse of 18 days. It seems that the cheques were received by the appellant on 9th March, 1976.

4. The Labour Court accepted the objections and dismissed the application. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal had been filed.

5. It has been urged before me on behalf of the appellant that he was not given any opportunity to rebut the allegation and to show that the cheques were either accepted under protest or were at all received or encashed. There is no force in this contention. It was admitted by Mr. Izhar Ahmad who represented the appellant in the Labour Court that the cheques had been actually received and deposited in the newly opened account and were encashed. The objection for the first time was raised by the appellant after a lapse of 18 days and it appeared to have been take at the instance of some person. On hearing the arguments advanced before me, I see no reason to disagree with the conclusion reached by the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court. The admission made by the representative of the appellant is equally binding upon him and no exception can be taken.

6. In the result the appeal is dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.