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. KAR‑197 of 1985, heard on 2nd December, 1985.
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Grievance petition against alleged wrongful termination‑‑Resignation tendered by petitioner and acceptance thereof proved‑‑Grievance petition, held, was rightly dismissed as not maintainable.
1980 P L C 1148 ref.
Rasheed Ahmad for Appellant.
Azmatullah Khan for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 2nd December, 1985.
This is an appeal against an order, dated 28‑5‑1985, passed by Sind Labour Court No. I, Karachi, dismissing the grievance petition, under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969, filed by the appellant.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed by the respondent‑--Corporation as Daily Wages Conductor on 3‑4‑1980, against a vacancy in the work of permanent nature. The appellant served in the respondent‑--Corporation in that capacity for four years and during this period, the appellant alleged that the respondent had been adopting illegal and mala fide practice by forcing him to submit fresh applications periodically, on or before completion of every 90 days and ultimately on 26‑3‑1984, his services were orally terminated without assigning any reason or justification. The appellant further alleged that the juniors to the appellant were retained by the respondent‑--Corporation, in violation of Standing Order 14.
3. The stand taken by the respondent‑Corporation is that all the allegations of the appellant are false and baseless in view of the fact that he was appointed as Badly Conductor for specific period from time to time and finally, on 26‑3‑1984 he tendered his resignation which was accepted, hence, the grievance petition, under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969, is not maintainable.
4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits in evidence and were cross‑examined. The resignation, dated 26‑3‑1984, was confronted to the appellant in his cross‑examination and he admitted the facts of tendering his resignation and his signatures thereon. This document is Exh. A.W.1/A of the record of the Labour Court.
5. I have heard Mr. Ch. Rasheed Ahmad, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Azmatullah Khan, learned representative for the respondent Corporation and have perused the record and evidence of the parties. Mr. Azmatullah Khan, the learned representative for the respondent Corporation has contended that in view of the admitted position by the appellant that he has tendered his resignation, dated 26‑3‑1984, which was subsequently, accepted by the Corporation, the grievance petition filed by the appellant under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969, before the learned Labour Court was not maintainable, hence, this appeal also merits dismissal. The contention of Mr. Ch. Rasheed Ahmad for the appellant is that in fact the appellant was gate‑stopped illegally only, with a view to retain juniors to the appellant in the employment and the malpractice of liking and disliking is clearly established. The' appellant has failed to establish this allegation. On the other hand, Mr. Azmatullah Khan has referred to me an authority of this Tribunal reported in 1980 P L C 1148.
6. In these circumstances, I hold that the learned Labour Court has rightly dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant as not maintainable. Accordingly, I dismiss the appeal.
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