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. HYD‑208 of 1984, heard on 15th October, 1984.
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Grievance petition against termination of service‑ Grievance notice served but withdrawn‑‑Petition, in circumstances, held, rightly dismissed by Labour Court as not maintainable.
Shaikh Wahid Bux for Appellant.
Sultan Ahmad for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 15th October, 1985.
This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Labour Court No. VI at Hyderabad on 16‑8‑1984, whereby he dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant Saghir Ali.
2. Briefly the facts are that the appellant was appointed as a Porter on 30‑7‑1977 by R.M.S. Hyderabad. The appellant joined the department in the month of October, 1977 and continued to work as such till 15‑3‑1981. On the next day, when he reported for duty he was not permitted to work as he failed to qualify the examination held in February, 1981. Nothing was given in writing. On 22‑3‑1981, the appellant preferred an appeal to the respondent No. 1 to which no reply was made. However, on 19‑6‑1981, the Respondent No. 1 asked the appellant to furnish a copy, dated 30‑7‑1981 and so the same was supplied. The respondent No. 1 was approached by the appellant and his father who insisted that in the first instance the Notice, dated 7‑6‑1981 under section 25‑A may be withdrawn and then his case would be considered. Then, for sufficient time the appellant made representations to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 ultimately he was told that his representation was rejected on 13‑12‑1983. He, therefore, filed the grievance petition.
3. The respondents pleaded that the appellant was appointed temporarily and so he used to work only during the course of leave and short‑gap arrangements. He failed to qualify the departmental examination. It was further pleaded that the notice under section 25‑A was withdrawn of his own accord and, therefore, the grievance petition is not maintainable as is clearly time‑barred. Further, it was pleaded by the respondents that no assurances were given to the appellant.
4. In support of the application, the appellant himself was examined while Muhammad Ainul Haque was examined on the side of the respondents. The arguments were heard.
5. On evidence, the Labour Court found that the appellant was treated as a temporary worker which was not justified by the evidence on record as continuously he worked for more than 120 days. As regards the fact that the appellant failed to qualify in the departmental examination, this fact was also accorded by the learned Labour Court inasmuch as there was no record to show in evidence that it was necessary to pass the departmental examination. On these points I ,agree with the learned Labour Court.
6. However, serious difficulty was encountered in this case and this is a legal difficulty which cannot be surmounted by any argument. The grievance petition is time‑barred. The appellant yielded to the pressure of the respondents which is denied by the respondents themselves. It is not proved sufficiently that he withdrew the grievance notice on the pressure of the respondents. It was the duty of the appellant not to yield to any inducement or pressure to establish his right which would otherwise be infringed. I, therefore, agree with the learned Labour Court and dismiss this appeal and maintain the order of the Labour Court.
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