Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Appeal No. SG‑707 of 1980, decided on 24th February, 1982.
‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Grievance notice to employer‑‑Mandatory‑‑Grievance petition against alleged lock‑out‑‑Written statement of employer stating that petitioner was dismissed‑‑Petitioner on coming to know from written statement about his dismissal, held, should have brought grievance notice and could bring grievance petition if his grievance not redressed‑‑Grievance petition filed without grievance notice, in circumstances, held, not maintainable.
Abdul Majid for Appellant.
Nemo for Respondent.
This appeal arises from the decision, dated 24th August, 1980, recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad, whereby grievance petition of the appellant for re‑instatement was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was charge‑sheeted for being habitual absentee. He filed reply which was considereG unsatisfactory and inquiry was held. During the inquiry the appellant slipped away and again he was served a notice to join inquiry but he did not care.
3. The case of the appellant however, is that he was locked out from 12‑12‑1979, he therefore, served grievance notice on 11‑1‑1980 and brought grievance petition. In the written statement the respondent took up plea that the appellant had been dismissed on 5‑2‑1980. In spite of it the appellant did not serve any grievance notice to the respondent against dismissal, dated 5‑2‑1980. No doubt before written statement was filed the appellant Was not known that he had been dismissed and when he learned from the written statement that he had been dismissed vide order, dated 5‑2‑1980 he should have brought grievance notice and if the same was not redressed then he should bring grievance petition for setting aside the said order provision of section 25‑A in respect of service of grievance notice are mandatory and without the service of such notice grievance petition is not competent. His grievance petition was for the alleged lock out. The grievance petition, therefore, failed on the short ground. It was rightly dismissed by the learned lower Court. There is no force in appeal which is dismissed.
M.Y.M.
Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer