Find a Lawyer

Appeals No. HYD‑88‑95 of 1982, decided on 3rd April, 1982..

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑--

‑‑‑ S. 25‑A‑Grievance petition‑Limitation‑Factory working on seasonal basis‑Seasonal worker at close of season informed in writing that due to unsatisfactory work his services will not be required in next production season‑No grievance made against that order and all dues in full and final settlement received‑Not allowed work in next season when reported after six months -Grievance notice served thereafter held, time‑barred and petition, held, not maintainable.

Wasiullah Qureshi for Appellants.

Date of hearing : 3rd April, 1982.

These 8 appeals, one each by 8 workers who were unsuccessful before the learned VIth Labour Court, are directed against the common decision given by learned Labour Court on 28th February, 1982. dismiss ing the grievance petition of the 8 appellants challenging the action of the Bawani Sugar Mills Ltd., the common respondents herein, in refusing them employment for the sugar‑cane season 1981‑82. The ground upon which this decision is founded is that as the services of the appellants were terminated at the end of the season 1980‑81, the grievance notices, which are all dated 17th September, 1981, and the grievance petitions, which were filed on 12th October, 1981 are barred by limitation and not maintainable.

2. The admitted facts of the case are that the respondent mills are a seasonal factory engaged in the crushing of sugar‑cane and the manufacture of sugar. All the 8 appellants were admittedly workmen employed in the said mills on seasonal basis. It appears that on 26th March, 1981, at the close of the season 1980‑81, each of the 8 appellants was served with a separate discharge order which reads as follows :‑

"You are appointed as seasonal watchman on purely seasonal basis for the production season 1980‑81. As the season is closing on 28th April, 1981, you are hereby relieved from Mills services from the same date.

You are further informed that as your work has not been found satisfactory during the season, the Management will not require your services in the next production season 1981‑82. As such you peed not tarp up for employment in our Mill in the next season.

You are required td produce clearance certificate from the depart ments concerned for full add final settlement of your dues."

3. It appears that no objection was taken by the appellants against the aforesaid order and possibly they received their dues in full add final settlement as appears from the order of their discharge. However, when the respondent mills commenced their operation during the year 1981‑82, with effect from 11th September, 1931, the appellants presented themselves for work at the said mills but they were refused to be allowed to resume their duties in view of the aforesaid order of their discharge. Each of the appellants thereupon served a separate grievance notice, dated 17th September, 1981, upon the respondents mills. As the grievance of the appellants was‑not redressed, they preferred grievance petition before the learned Labour Court on 12th October, 1981. The learned Labour Court, as already indicated by a common order, has dismissed the grievance petitions of the appellants on the ground that both the grievance notices given by them and the grievance petitions filed by them are time barred.

4. It was argued by Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi, that inasmuch as the appellants had been admittedly allowed to work till the end of 1980‑81 season, they were entitled to be taken back on duty by the respondents mills, when they commenced operations for the year 1981‑82, in accord ance with the provisions of Standing Order 14. The said Standing Order, however, is applicable only in the case of retrenchment. The appellants admittedly were not ratrenched from service but were discharged from service for unsatisfactory work as is clear from the discharge orders, dated 26th March, 1981, which were admittedly received by them. As the ' cases of the 8 appellants do not fall within the purview of Standing Order 14, they were not entitled to be taken on duty by the respondents mills on the opening of the mills in the year 1981‑82. Thus the grievance of the appellants was the discharge from service for unsatisfactory work, vide the orders, dated 26th March, 1981. This grievance could have been made the subject‑matter of a grievance petition before the learned Labour t Court provided that grievance notice in respect of it was filed within the prescribed period and this was followed by a grievance petition within the prescribed period, which admittedly was not done.

5. For the reasons discussed by me above, I find no, merit in all these 8 appeals and would dismiss the same in limine.

Appeals 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.