1982 PLP 402 (PLC)

Ali Amjad for Applicant. Mohammad Humayun for Respondent. The facts forming the backgrounds of this application are as follows :‑ The case of the applicant, in brief, is that he was a permanent work man, in the capacity of Lino Operator, in the respondent's establish ment, and had served there for about 12 years. According to him, the Management of the respondent was not happy with him on account of his Trade Union Activities. It is alleged that because of his said acti vities, as a measure of victimisation, he was transferred from News Section to Job Section in the year, 1978 &,ad in that regard he had filed an application before the Labour Court: challenging the said action of the respondent, and since the latter withdrew his action, therefore, he also withdrew the said application. The respondent, however, did not mend its ways and again transferred him to Job Section through letter dated 19th April, 1978. Not only the respondent continued harassing him. but also in that process kept him idle for months together, and had issued him a charge sheet in March, 1979 which was followed by a domestic enquiry, the result of which is still not known to him. It is said that under the aforesaid circumstances, on 29th October, 1980 he requested the respondent for his retirement and accordingly he was retired from service w. e. f. 31st December, 1980. Prior to said retirement, a charge sheet dated 5th November, 1980 was served upon him to which he had replied on 10th November, 1980 and it was also followed by a domestic enquiry and a second show‑cause notice dated 27th December, 1980. On 5th February, 1981, he sent the grievance notice, which according to him, was replied evasively by the respondent. Hence the application for re‑instatement with full back benefits. As a preliminary objection, the respondent has challenged the maintainability of the application on the plea that the applicant having been retired at his own option, and having received an amount of Rs. 22,736. 85 in full and final settlement through Cheque No. 300774 dated 3rd January, 1981 drawn on National Bank of Pakistan Haroon House Branch Karachi; the application in question was not maintain able and was misconceived. On merit, the case of the respondent is that the applicant had committed misconduct as such disciplinary proceed ings were drawn against him. The point for determination in this case is that whether or not the applicant, after having received the aforesaid amount in full and final settlement of his claim, is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under section 25‑A of the I. R. O., 1969. It is an admitted position that on 29th October, 1980 he had applied for retirement and on 31st December, 1980 he was retired from his service. It is also a proved fact that the aforesaid amount was received by him in full and final settlement of his claim. This is evident from para one of his grievance notice dated 5th February, 1981 that he had received the Cheque of the aforesaid amount. Reside the said admission in the grievance notice, he had also in para. 3 of his objections dated 31st May, 1981 has admitted to have received the said amount. Of course, now it is contended that the said amount was received under the protest, but the fact is that neither in the grievance notice nor in the main application it was alleged any where that the said amount was received under protest. On the face of it, it seems to be an afterthought. Since the applicant had himself opted for retirement, had also received retirement benefits in full and final settlement of his claim. I think, no cause of action had accrued to him . to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under section 25‑A of the I. R. O. The preliminary objection of the respondent is upheld and the main application is dismissed accordingly.