Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑670 of 1980, heard on 30th November, 1980.

‑‑S. 25‑A‑Petition to Labour Court‑Grievance notice to emp loyer within prescribed period‑Pre‑requisite‑Grievance notice given after expiry of three months‑Not valid‑Grievance petition, in circumstances, held, not maintainable.

‑‑Resignation‑Worker tendering resignation and ceasing to attend duty‑Acceptance of resignation from date of tender, in circumstances, upheld‑Grievance petition for re‑instatement, in circumstances, held, misconceived‑Industrial Relations Ordi nance (XXIII of 1969), S. 25‑A.

Mohammad Ahmed for Appellant.

Date of hearings ; 30th November 1980,

The appellant, who was employed as an Assistant Shipper in the respondent establishment, tendered his resignation from service on 24th July, 1979. The said resignation, according to the respondent establishment, was accepted on the same date. The appellant claimed his outstanding dues from the respondent‑establishment but as according to him, the same were not paid to him, despite assurance from the proprietor of the res pondent establishment, he served a grievance notice on the respondent on 30th October, 1979, claiming payment of his legal dues or in the alter nate asking to be re‑instated in service. There is on the record of the learned Labour Court a reply to the said notice from the respondent establishment advising the appellant to collect his dues on any working day from the factory cashier. Despite this letter, the appellant claims that he has not been paid his legal dues and accordingly he filed a grievance petition before the learned Labour Court on 14th November 1979, praying for re‑instatement in service with full back benefits. The learned Labour Court has dismissed the appellant's grievance petition both on the ground of limitation as well as on merits.

2. I have heard Mr. Mohammad Ahmed, the learned counsel for the appellant, and have also gone through the record of the case. Both the grounds on which the learned Labour Court has dismissed the appel lant's grievance petition appear to be unassailable As already pointed out, the appellant's resignation appears to have been accepted on 24th July, 1979, the very day on which it was tendered, as per endorse ment thereon. The acceptance of this resignation with effect from 24th July, 1979 is also supported by the admission of the appellant that from the said date he has not been paid his dues,. As such, the grievance of the appellant, which is in regard to the termination of his services, arose on 24th July, 1979. However, the grievance notice was sent by him to the employer on 30th October 1979 much beyond the period of three months within which such notice is required to be served upon the employer. Since the service of grievance notice upon the employer within the pres cribed period is necessary pro‑condition to the fling of a grievance's petition, the appellant's grievance petition is not maintainable as rightly hold by the learned Labour Court.

3. On merits. also, I find no case made out by the appellant. The appellant had himself tendered a written resignation on 24th July, 1979, which was accepted on the same date. A perusal of his grievance notice, dated 30th October 1979, shows that is from that date he ceased to work in the respondent establishment. It would, thus, appear that the appellant had knowledge of the acceptance of his resignation, even if the letter, dated 24th July, 1979, from the respondent establish ment was not served upon him, as claimed by him. As the appellant himself had tendered his resignation and thereafter ceased to attend to his duties in the respondent establishment, the respondent establishment rightly accepted his resignation from the date it was tendered and the appellant can have no grievance in this behalf.

4. For the reasons stated above; I find no merit in this appeal and would, therefore, dismiss the same in limine. It is needless to add that if the appellant has not been paid his legal dues by the respondent establishment, he is entitled to collect the same from the Cashier of the res pondent factory, as intimated to him in the respondent establishment's letter, dated 24th July, 1979.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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