Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. GT‑398 of 1982, decided on 19th December, 1982.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑--

-

--‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38 ‑ Grievance notice to employer‑Not proved to have been served‑Grievance petition, in circumstances, held, rightly dismissed by Labour Court.

Mohammad lkram for Appellant.

Date of hearing ; 12th December, 1982.

This appeal emanates from the decision dated 10th June, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his recalling to duty for the season. of 1981‑82 was dismissed.

2. The appellant was a temporary seasonal worker in the respondent mills and worked in season of 1979‑80 and 1980‑81 but was not employed for the season of 1981‑82. He therefore brought grievance petition. He alleged that he had served grievance notice and produced its office copy P‑1. The stand taken by the respondent was that no grievance notice had been served and that the petition was time‑barred. The service of the appellant was terminated vide R‑2 on the close of the season on 27th April, 1981. He was informed vide R‑3 on 5th June, 1981 that he would not be recalled for the season of 1981‑82. On 8th June, 1981 cause of grievance occurred to the appellant but grievance notice is alleged to have been served on 27th Novem ber, 1981. The period of limitation expired on 7th September, 1981 so grievance notice dated 27th November, 1981 was time barred. If the appel lant had not been informed beforehand on 8th June, 1981 of course cause of grievance would have arisen to him at the time the mills started work for the season of 1981‑82 i. e. 24th October, 1981. Moreover the appellant has not proved that on 24th October, 1981 or within 10 days of the starting of the Mills reported for duty but he was not taken on duty. Even in his statement he has not said that he had reported for duty on 24th October, 1981. So the starting point of limitation is not 24th October, 1981 but 8th June, 1981 when the appellant was informed vide R‑3 that his services were not required for the season of 1981‑82.

3. Even the service of grievance notice is not proved. Yousaf who is, alleged to have received the grievance notice was not examined by the appel lant. The signatures of Yousaf were not got proved from RW‑1. No question t was‑ put to him in this respect.

4. The appellant did not come to Court with clean hands. He changed his signature in order to show that his grievance notice was from 24th Octo ber, 1981. within time. Letter R‑2 was served upon him on 8th June, 1982. The signature appearing on R‑2 in token of receiving it differs from his signature which he had put upon his grievance petition and memo: of appeal etc. The signature of the appellant appearing on R‑2 tally witch his signature appearing on undisputed document R‑3 but are different from the ones which he affixed on grievance petition and memorandum of appeal.

In the circumstances discussed above the petition of the appellant was, rightly dismissed. There is no force in the appeal which is dismissed 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.