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. OT‑18 of 1982, decided on 16th May, 1983.
‑‑ S. 25‑A‑Grievance notice‑Cause of grievance ‑‑Seatdna1 worker‑Employed every time at re‑start of working of Mills Services terminated as usual at close of season and thereafter informed by letter that his services would not be required for next season due to indifferent performance and disregard of Company's discipline during past seasons‑‑Mills restarting after about 6 months‑Refused re‑employment at time of start of next season Cause of grievance, in circumstances, held, accrued on date of service of letter informing him reasons for his services not required for next season and not on date of refusal of employment on start of next season‑Grievance notice served after being refused employ ment on start of next season in circumstances, held, time‑barred and grievance petition pursuant to such notice not competent.
Muhammad 1kram for Appellant.
Saleem Baig for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 10th May, 1983.
The appeal captioned above is directed against the decision, dated 10th December, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala.
2. The appellant was a seasonal worker of the respondent Mills . since 1972. His services were terminated as usual on the close of the season of 1980‑81 on 27th February. 1980, vide order Exh. R‑1. On 23rd April. 1980 letter Exh. R‑2 was delivered to the appellant informing him that he would not be required for the next season is view of his indifferent performance in the last few seasons during which he displayed disregard of company's discipline and rules. The appellant served the respondent with a grievance notice on 20th November, 1980. The season had started from 1st November, 1980. As no redress came the appellant brought grievance petition on 3rd January, 1981. The learned lower Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the grievance notice was time‑barred.
3. It has beer argued that since the season started from 1st November, 1980 cause of grievance accrued to the appellant when he was within ten days of the re‑start of the Mills refused re‑employment. The appellant had a subsisting right of re‑employment on the re‑start of the Mills. Always his services were terminated on the close of the season with the stipulation that he would be re‑employed at the time of the re‑starting of the Mills. By letter Exh. R‑2 his said right was extinguished, thus the cause of grievance accrued to him on the service of Exh. R‑2 on 23rd April, 1980 and not on refusal to be given duty in November, 1980. A Even no copy of application and postal or A/D receipt were produced to show that on the restart of the Mills request for re‑employment was made within ten days. So, even otherwise there is no force in the contention that cause of grievance accrued from refusal to be given duty in November, 1980.
4. It has beets argued that on the allegation of misconduct, re‑employ ment was refused but neither any enquiry was held in the presence of the appellant, nor charge sheet was given to him. The point could be considered if the grievance petition had been competent. Since the grievance notice was time‑barred, it was not a legal notice and thus the very grievance petition was not competent,
5. The learned lower Court in, the above discussed circumstances rightly dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant. There is no force in the appeal, which is hereby dismissed.
A.E Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer