Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. HYD‑90 of 1981, heard on 14th April, 1981.

‑‑‑ S. 25‑A ‑‑ Grievance notice and petition--- Why preferred ‑ Management not to establish as to why claim is preferred against it‑Petition alleged illegal and oral termination of service Record indicating that petitioner left service voluntarily and was serving elsewhere‑Contention that had he left service voluntarily he would not have filed grievance petition‑Contention repelled Held: it is not for Management to establish why a petitioner pre ferred his claim which is found without substance.

Wasiullah Qureshi for Appellant.

Date of hearing: 14^thApril, 1981.

The appellant, who claims that he was employed as a coal‑cutter and was also given additional charge of Labour mate at mine No. 3 in the Faiz Coal Mines, Khanot, the first respondent therein, filed a grievance petition before the learned VII1th Labour Court on 5th February, 1981 alleging that on 5th February, 1980, he was removed from service, by oral orders of the first respondent, and prayed for his reinstatement in service with full back benefits. The learned Labour Court has dismissed the appellant's grievance petition on the grounds, firstly, that the appel lant has failed to establish that he was removed from service or stopped from performing his duties by the first respondent, and secondly, that it had not been established that the appellant bad served the required grievance notice upon the first respondent.

2. It appears from the evidence of Mujeebur Rehman, President of the Faiz Coal Mines, Khanot, that the appellant was employed by him as coal‑cutter at mine No. 3 and when the said mine was closed, the appellant worked for a short time first at coal mine No. 2 and thereafter at coal mine No. 4 but subsequently, he willfully absented himself from duties with effect from 5th February, 1980, and since that date, he has been working as black smith with Labour Jamadar, Zardar Khan in mine No. 5 of Saqib Coal Mines which are quite different coal‑mines. Support to the testimony of Mujeebur Rehman is provided by Mohammad Younus, accounts clerk in the Saqib Coal Mines. He has testified that the appellant has been working as black‑smith in the Saqib Coal Mines for more than past 14 months. The evidence of these two witnesses stands un-rebutted. It is clear from the perusal of their evidence that shortly after the closure of mine No. 3 of Faiz Coal Mines, the appellant voluntarily left the said mines and has been working for the Saqib Coal Mines. As such, the allegation of the appellant that his services were unlawfully and orally terminated is without substance. Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi, the learned representative for the appellant sought to argue that if the appellant had voluntarily abondoned the services of the first respondent, there was no reason for him to serve a grievance notice upon them. I regret that I find to substance in this contention. It appears that the brother of the appellant had been working as a Jamadar in the Faiz Coal Mines but had absconded after he was charged with commission of fraud and misappropriation of money. It is possible that the appellant in relation for the action taken by Faiz Coal Mines against his brother, may have brought, the present proceedings. In an case, it is not for the management to establish why the appellant preferred this claim against them, if the claim is found to be without substance.

3. For the reason discussed by me above, I find no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same in limine.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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