1982 PLP 736 (PLC)

Mahabbat Khan v. International Forwarding Agency Ltd., Karachi 1980 P L C 655 Tel. Shaikh Wahid Bux for Applicant. M. Bashir Awan for Respondent. Applicant Ganesh has moved this grievance application for wages, for other benefits including bonus and for right of re‑employment.

2. Admittedly the applicant joined respondent factory as Sargar Fitter in July, 1981. Respondent factory is a seasonal factory and it was closed on 13th January 1982 at close of the season for 1981‑82.

3. In his grievance application the applicant stated that on 18th November, 1981 he was gate‑stopped by Factory Engineer who forcibly obtained his signature on white paper and then turned him out after telling him that he was involved in a debt of Rs.

445. Applicant sent letter R/3 dated 19th November 1981 to the respondent informing him about his illegal gate‑stop on 18th November 1981. Subsequently on 9th December 1981 the applicant sent grievance notice copy A/2 to the respondent who sent to the applicant reply A/4 to the letter R/3. Appli cant added that he was entitled to work in respondent factory till 13th January 1982. That after his illegal and unlawful removal on 18th November 1981 another person was employed in his place. Hence the applicant claimed wages with 20 days over time wages and other benefits for the period' 18th November 1981 to 13th January 1982.

4. Grievance application was opposed by the respondent who termed it to be time barred. Request for bonus was said to be pre mature. The applicant was said to have waived his right of re‑employ ment in next season due to voluntarily leaving the job on 18th November, 1981 by way of resignation. Respondent stated that the grievance notice copy A/2 was subsequent to R/3 and it was not permissible in law. Claim of the applicant for wages was opposed.

5. Parties adduced evidence. I have heard Mr. Wahid Bux for the applicant and Mr. M. Bashir Awan, Counsel for the respondent.

6. Mr. Bashir argued that grievance application filed on 7th February, 1982 was time‑barred because letter R/3 was to be treated as grievance notice. He cited 1981 P L C 621, where the worker alleged that he was not allowed to resume duty on 18th August, 1979 and on 20th August, 1979 he sent representation to his employer and filed grievance application on 27th January, 1980. The representation dated 20th August, 1979 was treated as grievance notice and grievance applica tion was held to be time‑barred. It was held that section 25‑A did not prescribe any form for the notice to be given by an aggrieved workman to his employer. Present case appears to be similar to the said case. Mr. Bashir cited 1979 P L C 175, where it was held that the limitation was to start from the date of reply to the grievance notice and any subsequent letter sent by workman to the employer cannot affect the original grievance notice and it cannot be treated as a grievance notice to affect limitation period. In view ‑ of this I agree with Mr. Bashir that presents grievance application is time barred.

7. Mr. Wahid Bux argued that in the reply A/4 the respondent called upon the applicant to resume duty within 3 days. In his grievance application the, applicant did not state if after receipt of reply A/4 he reported for duty. In his notice copy A/2 dated 9th December, 1981, the applicant stated that his application R/3 has not been replied. This shows that the applicant either did not receive the letter A/4 or he did not report for duty after receiving said letter. Fact that said letter has come from the applicant shows that he received it and yet he did not report for duty. This supports case of the respondent that on 18th November, 1981 the applicant tendered resignation R/2. Applicant admitted his signature on resignation R/2 but led no evidence to prove that his signature on the same was obtained under force. Mr. Bashir cited 1980 P L C 1158, where it was held that acceptance of resignation was not essentially to be communicated by the employer.

8. The very maintainability of the grievance application is open to question. After end of the season on 13th January, 1982, the applicant ceased to be in employment of the respondent even if he had not resigned, if he had resigned then he was no longer workman and was not entitled to make application under section 25‑A of I. R. O., regarding any dues, etc. as per 1980 P b C

655. Even otherwise grievance application of the applicant was not maintainable for realisation of wages. Applicant should have moved the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. Applicant ha ' not prayed for re‑instatement and his prayer for re‑employment for the ensuing season of 1982‑83 is premature. In 1981 P L C 575 (?), the grievance application for emoluments was held not maintainable, when the worker failed to show as to under what rule or law he was entitled to the emolu ments claimed by him.

9. In view of above discussion, I hold that this application is time barred, not maintainable and without substance and it stands dismissed. (1) 1981 P L C 621 (2) 1979 P L C 175