1989 PLP 454 (PLC)

S.P. Lodhi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 17th August, 1988. This is an appeal filed by the appellants establishment against an impugned order, dated 26‑2‑1987, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. V at Karachi, who had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969, directing his reinstatement in services with consequential, benefits from the date of his termination from service till 23‑9‑1986. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case were that the respondent claimed to' have been working as a permanent workman in his capacity as a `programmer' and that on 16‑3‑1986, he fell ill and was under the treatment of company's Medical Officer whose Medical Certificate he had submitted to the management on 19‑3‑1986. It was claimed by him that in spite of submission of the. M.C., he was issued a show‑cause for misconduct of remaining absent for 3 days. Further, the claim of the respondent was that though he had submitted satisfactory reply, yet, an enquiry was conducted against him which was not proper resulting in his termination of services, vide letter, dated 10‑4‑1986 and being aggrieved, he had sent his grievance notice followed by the present grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969. 3. The appellants establishment had resisted the petition, mainly on t e ground that; firstly, that as the respondent was working as a `programmer' the nature of he was neither manual and/or clerical, skilled or unskilled, therefore, he was not a `workman' within the ambit of Labour Laws; secondly, that the respondent; was not taking interest in his job and used to remain absent frequently from his duties: thirdly, that his services were terminated in terms of his appointment letter giving him 3 months' pay in lieu of notice and he had received all his dues in full and final settlement, therefore, he was not aggrieved person to maintain his grievance petition; and lastly, that as the respondent had submitted his grievance notice upon the managemnet after expiry of the mandatory period, therefore, his grievance petition was not maintainable. 4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits‑in‑evidence and they were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence, the present appeal. 5. I have heard the parties and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case as well as the written arguments, submitted by the appellants establishment and the respondent. To reach a correct conclusion, I would think it proper to reproduce the related clauses/terms of appointment letter of the respondent, containing a large number of other terms and conditions, which were agreed upon by the respondent at the time of his joining the service as a `Programmer' in the establishment, as under:‑‑ "2. During the period of probation your employment may be terminated at any time by either the company or yourself without notice or without giving any reason. 3. On successfully completion of the, probationary period, your services may be terminated at any time by your giving the company 90 days' notice in writing or by the company giving you 90 days' notice in writing or three months' salary in lieu of notice. Termination is subject to any law in force from time to time. Provided however, that in the event of termination of your services being due to any misconduct of which the company shall be the sole judge, no notice by the company shall be required to be given and no salary in lieu of notice will be payable." The admitted facts are that the respondent, in view of termination of his services in accordance with these clauses/terms, had received all payments in full and final settlement of his dues and thereafter during the pendency of his present grievance petition, had left abroad to join a better job. It is settled principle of Law that if a worker receives all his dues from the employer, then, he has no right to maintain his grievance petition, being an aggrieved person. It is again an established fact that the nature of job of the respondent, as a `programmer' was purly technical, so, he was performing the duties of supervisory and managerial nature, as he was also getting a monthly salary of Rs. 4,000.00. The respondent did not adduce any evidence to prove that he was performing any manual or clerical duty and/or he was not a part of the administrative personnel of the establishment. It was incumbent upon the respondent to prove that he was a `workman' within the mischief of Labour Laws to maintain his grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969, which he had miserably failed to do so. According to his own admission, the respondent was allowed to maintain a car and for he which was also allowed 115 litres of petrol per month, in addition to an amount of Rs. 350 for repair and other maintenance of his car. These facilities are not allowed to a 'worker'. In view of these facts, the learned Labour Court did not fully appreciate all facts, evidence and other circumstances of the present case, while passing the impugned order, hence, it is set aside. The authorities relied upon by Mr. Muhammad Humayoon, the learned Advocate for the appellants, establishment are relevant and applicable to the facts and circumstances as well as to the legal aspects of the present case. 6. For the reasons discussed by me above, I would set aside the impugned order and would allow the present appeal. A.E./1311/Lb.S Appeal allowed.