Find a Lawyer

Appeals Nos. KAR‑228 and 229' of 1984, heard on 30th September, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Grievance notice‑‑Limitation‑‑Impugned termination order stating 'management has decided to terminate your services with immediate effect and this letter serves as one month's notice in accordance with terms of appointment'‑‑Dues including one month's salary offered‑ Termination, in circumstances, held, effective from date of order and interpretation so as to add one month more in lieu of one month's notice rejected‑‑Limitation for grievance notice, held, started from date of order‑‑Time spent on complaint to Labour Directorate, held, cannot be excluded for purposes of limitation for grievance notice.

Riaz Hussain Baloeh for Appellants.

Muhammad Zia Karim for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 30th September, 1985.

These are two appeals which are proposed to be disposed of by single order. One appeal is of Syed Nawab Hussain Jafri and the other is of Syed Anwar Shahzad. Their grievance is with regard to the impugned order, dated 4‑9‑1984 passed by the Sind Labour Court No. II at Karachi. Since the facts are same and the impugned order carries the same facts, I dispose of these two appeals by this single decision.

2. The facts of the case are that the two appellants joined the respondents establishment as parts Sales Representatives on 15‑8‑1982 and their services were terminated on 27‑4‑1983, vide letters, dated 22‑6‑1983. The two appellants submitted a complaint, dated 9‑8‑1983 to the Joint Director, Labour Central Division, Karachi, against their illegal termination but nothing resulted. The grievance notices by both the A appellants were given on 6‑10‑1983 but the same were not replied by the respondents establishment. Their prayer in the grievance petitions was that the action of the respondents resulted in violation of the rights guaranteed and secured to them under Standing Order 12(3), hence the grievance petitions.

3. The case of the respondents is that the grievance petitions were not maintainable on the ground that the petitions were time‑barred. On facts, the respondents submitted that the employment of the appellants is from 15‑8‑1982, but till the time of termination of their services, they had not become permanent and on account of their unsatisfactory work, the period of probation was being continuously extended. They submitted that the appellants' services were terminated on 22‑6‑1983, vide letters of termination which were of the same date and at the time of termination, the appellants were offered a cheque of Rs.1,924 each, in full and final settlement of their dues which they refused. The respondents further submitted that the termination of services of the appellants was according to law and they are willing to pay all their dues including one month's salary to each appellant in lieu of notice.

4. The evidence in the Labour Court was perused and the Advocates of the parties were heard on the facts enunciated in the memorandum of appeal.

5. The points boiled down to only one issue whether the grievance notice to the respondents establishment were time‑barred.

6. The letter of termination is Annexure 'A' and the relevant portion' of the same may be reproduced as under:‑

"The management has decided to terminate your services with immediate effect. This memorandum, therefore, serves as one month's notice in accordance with the terms of your appointment letter."

The above termination letter was debated by the Advocates and the contention of the learned counsel of the appellants was that the letter of termination, dated 22‑6‑1983 was given one month's notice of termination and the termination as such did not take place on the date of the order. While the Advocate of the respondents interpreted the contention as quoted in the above order. The intention was that the services of the two appellants were immediately terminated and in lieu of one month's notice, the payment was proposed. The words 'with immediate effect', decides the intention of the respondents. The termination order was, dated 22‑6‑1983 so the termination of the services was on the same date. There could be no interpretation to add one month more in lieu of one month's notice. This interpretation was not accepted by the learned Labour Court and I feel that it is correct. Therefore, the grievance notice was time‑barred.

7. In the memo. of appeal, it is stated that the respondents had spent time before the Labour Directorate and that period upto 5‑10‑1983 B may be excluded. This contention has no force and is not tenable.

8. The Salesman according to the authorities, is not a workman and this point was not argued by the appellants' Advocate.

9. At any rate, these two appeals fail. I accordingly dismiss these two appeals.

A.E. 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.