Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑158 of 1980; heard on 25th March, 1980.

‑‑ S. 25‑A‑Grievance petition‑Maintainable for enforcement of right guaranteed by or under law, settlement or award‑Re‑instate ment not guaranteed‑Cannot be claimed‑Workman dismissed on account of conviction by criminal Court on charge of misappropri ating money of employer ‑‑ Sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50‑Re instatement claimed on plea that in similar circumstances workers on conviction fined up to Rs. 50 had been re‑instated and that such was an oral agreement‑Such agreement, held, cannot be considered as a settlement‑Mere re‑instatement of some other worker, further held, created no right of re‑instatement to be enforced under S.25‑A.

Mazhar Ali Chohan for Appellant.

Date of hearing : 25th March, 1980

This appeal calls in question the decision given by the learned IIIrd Labour Court on 30th January 1980, dismissing the appellant's grievance petition by which he had challenged the orders of his dismissal from service. The dismissal from service of the appellant was on account of his conviction by a Criminal Court on the charge of committing misappro priation of the monies of the K. T. C., the respondent herein. The appellant was sentenced by the trial Court to pay a fine of Rs. 100 or in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, but in appeal the amount of fine was reduced to Rs. 50. The appellant claimed that there was a practice in the respondent establishment to reinstate employees who had been sentenced to pay a fine not exceed ing Rs. 50. In support of his contention, he cited before the Labour Court some instances where allegedly persons who had been fined by the Criminal Courts up to Rs. 50 had been reinstated in service by the respon dent‑Corporation. The learned Labour Court however, took the view that the appellant had failed to establish that there was any such practice prevailing in the respondent‑Corporation and that in any case the mere fact that the respondent‑Corporation may have re‑instated some employees who had been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50 gave no right to the appellant to claim re‑instatement in service.

2. Now, a grievance petition under section 25‑A, .I. R. O., can only be maintained for the enforcement of a right guaranteed by or under any law, settlement, or award. I, therefore, enquired from Mr. Mazhar Ali Chohan, the learned counsel for the appellant, as to what was the right of the appellant that had been infringed and whether such right was conferred on him by or under any law, settlement or an award. He submitted that the right to reinstatement was conferred on the appellant under an oral agreement. Such an agreement, however, cannot be considered to be settlement as defined in section 2. I. R. O., 1969, and as such, even if there had been such an agreement, no grievance petition can be entertained for the enforcement of any right allegedly conferred by such agreement. Further more, it was strongly denied by the respondent corporation before the learned Labour Court that there was any such agreement or any such practice prevailing in the respondent‑Corporation. The mere fact that some employees were re‑instated in service by the respondent‑Corporation, who had been sentenced to pay a fine, conferred no right on the appellant to be taken back in service, as rightly observed by the learned Labour Court.

3. As the appellant has failed to show what right of his has been infringed, his grievance petition is clearly not maintainable. I would accordingly uphold the decision of the learned Labour Court and dismiss the appeal in limine.

Appeal 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.