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‑733 of 1980, decided on 24th November, 1980.
----S. 25‑A‑Grievance notice to employer‑Prerequisite condi tion for grievance petition before Labour Court‑Grievance notice served much after expiry of 3 months from cause of action‑Grievance petition, i4 circumstances, held, not maintainable.
Mazher Ali Chohan for Appellant.
Date of hearing : 24th November, 1980.
The appellant, who was retired from the service of the respondent corporation with effect from 18th February, 1980, vide Rule 33‑1 of the R. T. C. Service Rules (as adopted by the SRTC and subsequently by KTC), filed a grievance petition before the learned Third Labour Court on 15th September, 1980, challenging his retirement orders on the ground that they were mala fide and he had been declared fit by the Chief Medical Officer to continue to perform his duties as conductor. The learned Labour Court has dismissed the appellant's grievance petition on the ground of limitation, as the appellant was admittedly retired on 18th February, 1980 and even his appeal against retirement was dismissed on 5th April, 1980 while the requisite grievance notice was served by the appellant on his employer on 11th August, 1980.
2. The prerequisite condition for the filing of a grievance petition under section 25‑A, 1. R. O., is the service by the aggrieved workman of the grievance notice upon his employer within three months of the, cause of action arising or accruing to him. In the instant case, the cause of action arose upon the retirement of the appellant on 18th February, 1980, but even if the cause of action is said to have accrued to him on the dismissal of his appeal against retirement on 5th April, 1980, the grievance notices, which was served on 11th August, 1980, is hopelessly time barred.
3. It has also not been shown by Mr. Mazher Ali Chohan, the learn ed counsel for the appellant, that the retirement orders in respect of the appellant are contrary to any Rules applicable to the employees of the respondent Corporation. The retirement orders are purported to have been issued under Rule 33‑1 of the K. T. C. Service Rules as adopted by the respondent corporation. Mr. Chohan was unable to produce or con trovert the said Rules despite being given one month's time to do so.
4. For the foregoing reasons, I see no merit is this appeal and would, therefore, dismiss the same in limine.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer