Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR-236 of 1984, heard on 8th October, 1985.

---S. 25-A--Grievance petition claiming legal dues on termination- Counter-claim for set off can be agitated.

S.M. Kohistani for Appellant.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 8th October, 1985.

This appeal with a limited prayer as to the set off claimed by the management be not allowed under the circumstances enunciated in the memo of appeal. The impugned order is passed on 16-9-1984 by the Sind Labour Court No. IV, Karachi.

2. The appellant, Ghulam Abbas was re-instated by the Labour Court No. IV in a case filed by Mushtaq Ahmad Bismil on behalf of Ghulam Abbas. Thereafter, the services of Ghulam Abbas were again terminated by the respondents but he was not paid the termination benefits by the respondents. Therefore, he once again filed grievance petition. In the impugned order at paragraph 28, the petition was allowed. The appellant will be entitled to notice pay and would be entitled to bonus etc. The only point agitated in this appeal is whether the set off or the counter-claim put, forward by the management, namely, a loan of Rs.5,000 and the price of tools with the appellant were correctly decided by the Labour Court or not I have seen the record and also seen the counter-signatures of the appellant on a torn piece of paper which was referred to the Handwriting Expert in the Police Department who has given an opinion that the signature of the appellant tallies with a signature on receipt passed on and signed by him with regard to a loan of Rs.5,000. This plea of set-off or the counter-claim was not originally made at the time when the Labour Court decided the petition in favour of the appellant and the judgment written by Mr. Rana Bhagwandas, the then Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. IV, Karachi, is available on record. There is no mention of the counter-claim. In that judgment, it is not available in the reply to the grievance notice by the management. The reply is at page 93, Exh. R-2 of the Labour Court record and is as under:--

"Subject:--Grievance notice under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

This has reference to your letter No. NIL, dated 20-6-1981 on the above-cited subject.

We are astonish to receive your letter claiming to be permanent worker of this organization. We wish to inform you that you have never been appointed as a worker but has been working with us in the capacity of Argon Welding sub-contractor.

We have all the record for the Sub-contracting and can be produced any if demanded.

Thanking you,

S.d/-Abdul Malik

Manager (Admn.)"

There is no mention of counter-claim in this reply.

3. I have heard the learned representative of the appellant and gone through the papers and believe that this counter-claim is an afterthought and is concocted by the management to deprive of the worker from getting his due benefits from them. Even the signature on a torn paper is a dubious and the opinion of the Handwriting Expert appears to be doubtful. There is no evidence to show that the tools were handed over to the appellant as such.

4. In these circumstances, I accept the appeal of the appellant with regard to his prayer in the -memo. of appeal. However, I may observe that in a petition under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969, all the facts and circumstances are to be gone through by the Labour Court and come to a final decision. The legal point that a counter-claim cannot be agitated in a petition under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969, is not correct. The counter-claim could be agitated but in this case the counter-claim is doubtful and afterthought. In other words, paragraph 28 of the impugned order is upheld, whereas the counter-claim is disallowed.

A. E. Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.