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. FD-706 of 1984, decided on 31st March, 1985.
---S.25-A--Grievance notice not served--Grievance petition in circumstances, held, rightly rejected.
Mushtaq Ahmad for Appellant.
Date of hearing: 12th March, 1935.
The decision dated 13-11-1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad has been challenged in this appeal, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re-instatement and payment of wages was dismissed.
2. The appellant was employed on 28-8-1982 on contract basis for two years. His services were terminated with effect from 1-12-1982 on the ground that his appointment was irregular. The case of the appellant is that he continued to work but was not paid salary from December, 1982 and for November he was paid only Rs.470. There is no documentary evidence to show that after October, 1982 the appellant attended his duty. No copy of the attendance register was produced. His pay was fixed in Grade No. 7 but the auditor objected to it on the ground that in the budget the pay of the mechanic was sanctioned at Rs.300 per month only.
3. As stated by RW-1 the appellant was after the audit objection offered pay of Rs.300 per month but he refused, so for the future his services were terminated. The appellant has not shown that the auditor had never objected to the fixation of his pay. The respondent had thus no other alternative but to terminate his service when on one hand the fixation of his pay in Scale No. 7 was objected to by the auditors and on the other hand the appellant had refused to serve at a monthly salary of Rs.300 that had been sanctioned in the budget for the post held by the appellant.
4. No grievance notice against termination of services was served. No copy of such a notice is on the record, nor there is any proof of its service. Notice Exh.P.8 is for the salary and not for re-instatement. So the prayer of re-instatement was rightly refused. So far as wages f for the period after November, 1982 is concerned, since the appellant failed to prove by producing attendance register that he had been attending to his duties after 30-11-1982, he was rightly disallowed the said dues.
5. As a result, the appeal is without any substance and is thus, dismissed in limine.
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