1994 PLP 440 (PLC)
MEHMOOD KHAN Versus SINDH ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HYDERABAD through Chairman
| Citation | 1994 PLP 440 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MEHMOOD KHAN Versus SINDH ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HYDERABAD through Chairman |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 440 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 440 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 440 (PLC) (MEHMOOD KHAN Versus SINDH ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HYDERABAD through Chairman). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rafiq Ahmed for Appellant.
- Dilawar Hussain for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 1st February, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑Grievance petition‑‑‑Maintainability‑.‑Employee who came to be reverted, had resigned from his job soon after his reversion, but his resignation was accepted after more than two years‑‑‑Employee left charge and collected outstanding gratuity amount and G.P. Fund from employer‑‑‑Employee after about two years from acceptance of his 'resignation, filed grievance petition against his reversion, which was dismissed by Court below as not maintainable, but Appellate Tribunal accepted appeal of employee against order of Trial Court and remanded case for decision afresh on merits after hearing parties‑‑‑Petition was again dismissed by Trial Court‑‑‑Acceptance of resignation was duly notified to employee after waiting for more than two years and soon after resignation employee had collected all his dues like gratuity and G.P. Fund lying with employer‑‑‑Employee, in circumstances not being an aggrieved person, his grievance application was rightly held, as not maintainable.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner was appointed as a clerk with the respondent in 1958. He had gained promotions and in 1977 held the office of an Accounts Officer, on a probation of 2 years. Just at the tail‑end of the 2 years' period he came to be reverted there from. It was on 9‑10‑1979. He was mortified at the turn of events and on 11‑10‑1.979 resigned from the job leaving the charge on 13‑10‑1979, though the acceptance of the resignation took place in 1982 but with effect from 9‑11‑1979. He had preferred an appeal before the Secretary to the Government of Sindh, Transport and Industries Department in 1982 through his counsel and the same came to be dismissed on 17‑5‑1984.
2. The petitioner had sent a grievance notice on 31‑12‑1984 and later a petition was presented before the Labour Court.
3. The respondents resisted the petition. It was alleged that after the submission of the resignation the petitioner had been paid out the outstanding gratuity amount on 29‑6‑1982, and his G.P. Fund on 4‑7‑1982. as such he was not an aggrieved workman within the meaning of section 25‑A, IRO. It was also alleged that the petition was barred by time.
4. The petition was rejected by the Labour Court under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. and an appeal was preferred before this Tribunal. It was allowed, and the case was remanded to the Labour Court for recording the evidence of the parties and disposal on merit.
5. The petitioner was his own witness and Ghulam Qadir the Personnel Officer of the SRTC appeared on behalf of the respondent.
6. The Labour Court for the reasons given by it dismissed the petition resulting in this appeal.
7. After dialing on the injustices meted out to the appellant, he‑had tendered his resignation in the following words: "Under the above circumstances and facts it is humbly requested that the victimising and unjustified orders of my reversion may withdrawn and my resignation may kindly be accepted with effect from 9‑I1‑1979 treating the period from 9‑10‑1979 to 8‑11‑1979 as one month's notice from my side."
8. The record shows that the appellant had made more than one "Representation" to the Government. Any way the reply to the representation which has been called `Appeal' had been received on 17‑5‑1984 and the Grievance Notice was sent on 31‑12‑1984. Section 25‑A of I.R.O., 1969. envisages the despatch of the grievance notice within three months of the date on which the cause of such grievance had arisen. Evidently the grievance notice was beyond time and that is enough to dispose of the appeal.
9. As for the resignation being conditional, the words used were "that if his reversion were not to be withdrawn his resignation should be accepted with effect from 9‑11‑1979." The letter was despatched on 9‑10‑1979. That was not done. Be that as it may. He did not wait even for that much time, and ceased working from 13‑10‑1979. The acceptance of the resignation was notified with a wait of about 2‑1/2 years and soon thereafter the appellant collected the outstanding gratuity amount and the G.P. Fund still lying with the respondents and therefore, there is force in the contention that the petition itself was not maintainable.
10. Under the circumstances the appeal is devoid of any merit and as a result the impugned order is upheld and the appeal stands dismissed. H.B.T./2290/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.