1989 (PLP)

Ali Ahmad for Appellant. Bashir Awan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 3rd May, 1988 This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 19‑10‑1987, passed by the Sind Labour Court No.V1 at Hyderabad, who had dismissed the grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969, filed by the appellant.

2. Brief facts of the case before the learned Labour Court were that the appellant claimed to have been working as Assistant to the Production Manager in the respondent establishment only for a period of 4 months and during this period, he claimed to have worked daily for 12 hours including gazetted holidays but, no overtime was paid to him, and when he demanded the overtime and encashment of leaves etc., his services were verbally terminated with effect from 20‑2‑1987 and even after this, he was not paid his 14 days' earned wages. Being aggrieved, he claimed to have sent hiss grievance notice followed by the present grievance petition. The case of the respondent establishment was that the appellant was appointed on a fixed salary of Rs.1,200 per month on 14‑9‑1986. but, on 31‑12‑1986, he had himself tendered resignation from service. Further, the case of respondent establishment was that the appellant had taken a loan of Rs.8,000 from them and so he was not inclined tore‑pay the same. Both the partes, led their respective evidence. Though tire affidavits‑in‑evidence were tiled on behalf of the respondent establishment, but, none was produced before the learned Labour Court for cross‑examination. However, after hearing both the parties, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence the present appeal.

3. I have heard Mr. Ali Ahmad, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr.Bashir Awan, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent establishment and have also perused the record and proceedings of the case as well as the written arguments submitted by the respondent establishment only. It has been argued by Mr. Bashir Awan, the learned Advocate for the respondent establishment that it is an admitted position on behalf of the appellant himself that his present application was time‑barred and that he has miserably field to sumit any cogent and authentic evidence in support of his case. He further argued that in fact the appellant had himself resigned from service on 31‑12‑1986, but, to bring his grievance petition in time with a mala fide intention, he has shown the date of alleged termination of his services as 20‑2‑1.987. It was further the argument of the respondent establishment that to prove the contention that registered letter of the appellant was refused by the respondent establishment, the appellant did not produce in evidence the concerned postman. Lastly, it was submitted by the establishment that after careful verification, the learned Labour Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the signatures of the appellant on his resignation letter were genuine, therefore, if has been established beyond any doubt that the appellant has tendered his resignation from service, so, he was not an aggrieved person to maintain his grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969. It was also pointed out that according to his own calculations, the grievance petition of the appellant was not maintainable being time‑barred. I see much force in all these contentions of Mr. Bashir Awan, the learned Advocate for the respondent establishme9t. On the other hand Mr. Ali Ahmad, the learned Advocate for the appellant has no legs upon to stand in support of his case, as he has not submitted anything reasonable and cogent in rebuttal of the contentions of the respondent establishment. In view of the matter, I would hold that the impugned order is well reasoned and correct, therefore, it must be maintained.

4. For the reasons discussed by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would dismiss the present appeal. A.E./1244/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.