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‑97 of 1981, heard on 8th March, 1981.
‑‑S. 25‑A‑Grievance notice to employer‑‑No specific form prescribed‑‑‑Submission of grievance in writing‑Sufficient‑Griev ance petition before Labour Court not filed within two and a half months of such written request‑‑Challenged as time‑barred- Contention that mere representation could not be treated as a grievance notice and limitation could not run from date of its submission‑Rejected‑Such representation containing grievance of workman, held, amounted to grievance notice.
Saleem Raza for Appellant.
Date of hearing: 8th March, 1981.
This appeal is directed against a decision given by the learned Fifth Labour Court .on 10th January 1981, dismissing the grievance petition submitted to it bay the appellant workman complaining against the refusal of the respondent‑Corporation to allow him to resume his work. The sole ground on which the said grievance petition has beets dismissed is that it was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed in sec tion 25‑A, I. R. O.
2. The grievance of the appellant is that when he reported for duty to the respondent‑Corporation on 18th August 1979, on return from sanctioned leave, he was not allowed to resume his duties. The appel lant thereupon, on 20th August 1979, brought his grievance in writ ing to the notice of the Managing Director of the respondent‑Corpora tion. The grievance petition, thereafter, had to be filed within two and a half months of the service of the said notice. However, it was filed on 27th January 1980, i.e. more than five months later. It was contended by Mr. Salim Raza, the learned Representative of the appel lant that the appellant's application, dated 20th August 1979, should not be construed as the required notice as it was merely a representation to the authorities. Section 25‑A, I. R. O. does not prescribe any form for the notice to be given by an aggrieved workman to his employer, All that it requires is that the notice should be in writing and by thereof the grievance of the workman should be brought to the notice of the employer. The representation, dated 20th August 1979, fulfils both these requirements. It thus had to be considered as the re quisite notice. Since admittedly the appellant did not submit :is griev ance petition to the learned Labour Court within two and a half months of the service of the above grievance notice upon the employer. the grievance petition was time‑barred and was thus rightly rejected bar the learned Labour Court. I would, accordingly dismiss this appeal in limine.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer