Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑978 of 1980, heard on 15th February, 1981.

‑‑‑ S. 25‑A‑Limitation‑Petition claiming house rent and con veyance allowance‑Claim based upon minutes of a meeting of Board of Directors of establishment‑‑Petition: filed about 22 months after said decision of Board of Directors‑Representation made to Management sought to be treated as grievance notice made about a year after said decision‑Grievance petition, in circum stances, held, rightly rejected as time‑barred for being not made within prescribed limitation period of 5 months.

M. M. Jeelani for Appellant.

Date of hearing : 15th February, 1981.

The appellant, who was employed as a senior Foreman in the respon dent‑Corporation, submitted a grievance petition to the learned IVth Labour Court claiming house rent allowance and conveyance allowance with effect from 6th April, 1979 as per rules governing the employees of the respondent‑Corporation. The respondent‑Corporation resisted the claim of the appellant on the grounds, firstly that he was not a workman for the purposes of the Standing Orders and was accordingly not entitled to maintain or file a grievance petition, secondly, that his claim to the grant of the house rent and conveyance allowances from a back date was without substance and that finally his grievance petition was hopelessly time‑barred. The learned Labour Court has dismissed the appellant's grievance petition solely on the ground that it was time‑barred as it was not filed within the maximum period of 5J months permitted under section 25‑A, I. R. O.

2. I have heard Mr. M. A. Jeelani, who appeared for the appellant workman. It was contended by Mr. Jeelani, firstly, that the claim of the appellant for grant of the allowance is based on the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors held on 1st July, 1978 and consequently, it was not possible for the appellant to agitate for the grant of these allowances prior to this date, and secondly, that the appellant had been sending representations to the authorities for the grant of these allowances to him and he was' assured that the matter was under consideration. Now, as regards the first submission of Mr. Jeelani, even if the cause of action accrued to the appellant on the passing by the Board of its resolu tion on 1st July, 1978 the grievance notice should have been served by the appellant on the employer within 3 months of the said date and the grievance petition should have been filed with a maximum period of 21 months after the service of the grievance notice. However, the grievance petition was filed on 25th February, 1980 i. e. about 22 months after the alleged decision of the Board of Directors.

3. It next falls to be considered whether the representations said to have been made by the appellant for the grant to him of the house rent allowance and conveyance allowance extend the period both for the service of the grievance notice and the filing of the grievance petition. Copies of the representations said to have been made by the appellant to the respondent‑Corporation, however, are not on record. Thus it cannot be said when those representations were made. All that we have on record is a photo copy of a memorandum from the respondent‑Corpora tion in reply to the application said to have been made by the appellant on 30th July, 1979 regarding the grant of house rent and conveyance allowances. Even if the representation was actually made by the appel lant on 30th July, 1979 to the respondent‑Corporation, then it is to be treated as a grievance notice and the period of limitation would start from the said date. However, the grievance petition was not filed within 2 months of the said representation. The mere intimation to the appellant that the matter was under consideration does not extend to the period of limitation, because even now no reply appears to have been given to the appellant to his representations. Further more, the said representation on 30th July, 1979 was made almost a year after the decision of the Board on which the claim of the appellant is based. The grievance petition thus appears to be time barred as held by the learned Labour Court.

4. It may also be pointed out that the appellant has not appended with his grievance petition a copy of the decision of the Board of the respondent‑Corporation on which he has based him claim. There is thus no tangible evidence that the appellant is entitled to house rent and conveyance allowance inspite of the fact that he has been allotted free of charge the Corporation's residence at the site of its work and, therefore, is not required to spend any money on the conveyance for the purpose of attending to his work.

5. For the reasons discussed by me above, I find no merit in his appeal and would dismiss the same 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.