1988 PLP 217 (PLC)

The applicant claims himself to have worked as Assistant to the Production Manager of the Respondent establishment for 4 months and, during this period, he had performed 12 hours duty daily including gazetted holidays but no overtime was said to have been paid to him. When he asked for the overtime and encashment of leave etc. he was verbally terminated on 20‑2‑1987 and was also not paid his wages for 14 days. He then sent a grievance notice on 15‑5‑1987 which was returned as refused and so he has filed the present petition for his re‑instatement with back benefits. In the reply statement, it has been pleaded by the respondent that the applicant was appointed as trainee on 14‑9‑1986 on a fixed salary of Rs.1,200 P.M. He however, himself resigned from 31‑12‑1986. It has also been pleaded that this applicant had taken a loan of Rs.8,000 but despite his promises, he has not re‑paid the same. The refusal of the grievance notice has been denied and has also been pleaded as time‑barred. The applicant appeared as his own witness in support of his case, while none was tendered in evidence on behalf of the respondent though affidavits of Mr. Sharfuddin and S.M. Feroze were filed in evidence. Written arguments have been filed by both the parties hereto, which have duly been considered in the light of the material on record. The only point which requires determination in this case is whether the applicant had himself resigned on 13‑12‑1986 or was verbally terminated on 20‑2‑1987. Mr. Ali Ahmed has submitted that the plea of the applicant that he was orally terminated on 20‑2‑1987 has not been shattered in his evidence nor the respondent has led any evidence in rebuttal. He also submits that by miscalculation the period of service of the applicant has been mentioned as 4 months in the pleadings though in fact the applicant had worked for 5 months upto 20‑2‑1987. According to him, the applicant nowhere stated in his cross‑examination that he had lastly attended the factory on 7‑2‑1987. Mr. Awan, on the other hand, submits that in the grievance notice and grievance petition the applicant has claimed to have worked for 4 months and has also so stated in his cross‑examination to the effect that he was appointed on 16‑9‑1986 and this period expired on 13‑1‑1987. .He has also stated that he had worked only upto 20‑1‑1987 and had visited the factory only upto 6/7th February, 1987. This being the voluntary statement of the applicant himself, the applicant having worked only upto 20‑1‑1987 and having last visited the factory on 7‑2‑1987, his grievance notice is time‑barred and so the present petition is also barred by limitation. He also submitted that this applicant has no where stated in the grievance notice 'or in the grievance petition that he had worked upto 20‑2‑1987. He submits that in fact the applicant had himself resigned on 31‑12‑1986 as per the documents on record. He has also prayed that the admitted signatures of the applicant be compared with the disputed signatures on record to come to a just conclusion. I have gone through the grievance notice as also the grievance petition but I have not been able to lay my hands on any specific averment as to when this applicant was actually appointed and upto what date he had physically worked. These two documents only show that he had worked for 4 months and when he requested for the payment of overtime etc., he was verbally terminated on 20‑2‑1987. This means that the applicant might have performed his duties upto 20‑2‑1987. In para 2 of his petition he asserted that he was not paid his 14 days wages as well. If he had worked upto 20‑2‑1987, it is not understood nor has it been explained on behalf of the applicant which were these 14 days. In fact, this assertion of the applicant created a serious doubt in his case. In any case, in his cross- examination he stated that he was appointed on 14‑9‑1986 and if he had put‑in in all 4 months service, this period would expire on 13‑1‑1986 and has accordingly been admitted so by the applicant himself in his cross‑examination. This further means that the assertion of his verbal termination on 20‑2‑1987 is a fabricated one to bring his this petition within time. The submission of Mr. Ali Ahmed about a miscalculation is also clearly an afterthought to improve this case. Not only this but I find that the applicant has himself admitted in his cross‑examination that he had worked only upto 20‑1‑1987 and had also lastly visited the factory on 6/7th February, 1987. This means that if at all there was a termination, it was at best on 7‑2‑1987 and so the cause of action to the applicant had accrued on that date. The grievance notice said to have been dispatched on 15‑5‑1987 is thus clearly time‑barred. It has been contended that this notice was refused by the respondent. I have seen this document and I find that its dispatch has not at all been proved. The notice is said to have been sent by registered post on 15‑5‑1987. No postal receipt has been produced. The closed envelope shows that it was dispatched on 14/5 and this also shows that the applicant himself is not aware when the grievance notice was actually sent by him. In any case, since as per the applicant he had worked only upto 20‑1‑1987 or at best he had last visited the factory on 7‑2‑1987 the grievance notice was time‑barred and so this petition is not maintainable in law because it is based on a time‑barred grievance notice. Since I find this petition as not sustainable, it is immaterial now to examine the contention of the respondent as to the resignation though, after comparison of the signatures of the applicant prima facie I am of the view that the resignation as also the appointment application bear the signatures of the applicant and also otherwise appear to have been moved by the applicant himself. In view of the above, I do not find any substance in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. A.E. /1043/Lb. S Petition dismissed.