1981 PLP 764 (PLC(CS))

Syed Abul Kalam for Appellant. Hashmat Ali Warsi for Respondent. Date of hearing : 8th September, 1980. The sole issue which falls to be considered in the instant case is whether the grievance petition under section 25‑A, I. R. O., filed by the appellant was premature and, therefore, merits, dismissal as held by the earned Labour Court.

2. The case of the appellant is that as he protested against the refusal of the Management to issue a regular appointment order and to grant him leave, overtime allowance and service benefits admissible under the law, the respondent mills were annoyed and orally terminated his services on 11th November, 1979 in contravention of the Standing Orders. He, accordingly, served a grievance notice upon the respondent mills but as he received no satisfactory reply he filed a grievance petition before the learned Labour Court on 8th December, 1979. The respondents resisted the appellant's grievance petition on the ground that the appellant was issued a charge sheet for wilful insubordination and wilful damage to the factory's goods on 18th November, 1979, but instead of replying to the charge‑sheet, he had remained absent from his duties without leave or information. It was denied by the respondent‑Mills that the appellant had been dismissed from service orally or otherwise. The learned Labour Court upheld the contention of the respondent‑Mills and, accordingly, dismissed the appellant's grievance petition. The appel lant has now come up in appeal.

3. Syed Abul Kalam, the learned representative for the appellant, strongly contended that the appellant had been orally dismissed from service by the respondent mill on 11th November, 1979 and thereafter he was not allowed to enter the mills or to perform his duties. However, he was unable to refer to any evidence in support of his contention save the bare word of the appellant. On the other hand, there is mass of evidence to show that the appellant was charge‑sheeted and a domestic enquiry was held against him and that his dismissal orders, based upon the domestic enquiry, were issued subsequent to the filing of the grievance petition by the appellant. The respondent, in their reply, dated 25th November, 1979, to the grievance notice of the appellant, have asserted that a charge‑sheet has been issued against the appellant for insubordina tion and wilful damage to the factory's goods on 18th November, 1979 but the appellant had neither submitted a reply to the charge‑sheet nor was he attending to his duties and is on the other hand unauthorisediy absent. A copy of the charge‑sheet was enclosed with this reply and the appellant was directed to submit his reply to the charge‑sheet and to report for duty immediately. This reply to the grievance notice clearly indicates that proceedings against the appellants were being taken and that he was still considered to be an employee of the respondent‑Mills. The reply, thus, negatives the assertion of the appellant that he was orally dismissed on 11th November, 1979. Even if the assertion of the appellant that he was orally dismissed on 11th November, 1979 were to be accepted the reply to the grievance notice indicates that those oral orders if it all issued, had been countermanded and regular enquiry was being held against the appellant. The appellant, instead of reporting for duty and participating to the enquiry proceedings chose to the grievance petition, which is clearly premature, as held by the learned Labour Court.

4. There is further evidence in support of the respondent's plea that inquiry proceedings were taken against the appellant. A letter, dated 13th December, 1979 was sent by registered post by the respondents to the appellant informing him that Mr. Khalid Rashid, Office Manager, has been appointed as Enquiry Officer against him and that the enquiry would be held on 20th December, 1979 at 3‑00 p. m. in the factory premises. This letter was sent by registered post A/D, to the known address of the appellant. It, however, appears that the appellant had changed his address without informing the Management and consequently the said letter may not have reached the appellant. However, another letter, dated 12th January, 1981 was sent by the respondent‑Mills to the appellant informing him that the enquiry will now be held by Mr. Khalid Rashid on 20th January, 1980 at 03.00 p.m. in the factory premises. This letter was sent by registered post A/D to the appellant. Both the postal receipt and the A/D slip in respect of this letter have been produced. Furthermore, since this letter was sent to the address given by the appellant in his grievance notice, it is to be presumed that the letter in question must have been received by the appellant. As such, it has been established that disciplinary proceedings were being taken against the appellant even after he had filed his grievance petition. Since they grievance petition of the 'appellant was against his dismissal, which on the basis of the material on record, it appears, had not yet taken place, the appellant's grievance petition was clearly premature. It is true that the appellant was subsequently dismissed from service but since no grievance notice upon the employer was served in respect of the subse quent dismissal order nor a grievance petition had been filed in respect of the said orders, the same cannot be challenged in these proceedings.

5. For the reasons stated by me above, I find no merit in this appeal and, accordingly, dismiss the same. Appeal allowed.