1978 PLP 385 (PLC)

Imdad Hussain Kazi for Appellant. Date of hearing; 20th September 1977 This is an appeal against the order of the Labour Court dismissing the application filed by the appellant under section 25.A, I. R. O.

2. The appellant was In the permanent employment of the respondent. The allegation against him is that he had insulted Mrs. Naila Inam, an employee of the respondent. He was, therefore, charge-sheeted and an inquiry was held. He was found Guilty and dismissed from service on 23rd April, 1976. After the service of grievance notice, he made an application to the Labour Court under section 25-A,

1. R. O. on 17-8-1976. He complained that he was victimized on account of the annoyance of his superior officer and a conspiracy was hatched against him in order remove him from the service.

3. Evidence was tendered by both the parties. On the assessment of the evidence tae Labour Court dismissed the application, as it was found that the appellant was found guilty of misconduct after proper inquiry. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal had been filed.

4. At the outset, it may be pointed out that in the Labour Court plea was taken that the application made under section 25-A, I. R. O. time-barred by virtue of subsection (6) to section 25-A, I. R. O. but this objection was overruled on the basis of some decisions of the High Court. On the other hand there are my two judgments wherein I had held that the aggrieved employee was required to approach the Labour Court directly under subsection (6) to section 25-A,

1. R. O. within two months of the termination of service and no grievance notice was necessary. In my previous decision I had distinguished the decisions of the High Court and arrived at my conclusion. In the recent decision I re-considered the entire position and on the basis of the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court I adopted my previous view. In this view of the matter the application made by the appellant under section 25-A, I. R. O. was clearly time-barred and liable to be dismissed on that account alone, as It was made beyond a Period of 2 months in contravention to subsection (6) of section 25-A, I. R. O.

5. Turning to the merits, the learned counsel failed to satisfy me that any illegality was committed in the domestic inquiry to provide any justification fop interference with the impugned order passed by the Labour Court which had given detailed reasons discussing all the pleas which had been raised on behalf of the appellant. The learned counsel simply urged before me that the doctor who had issued the certificate regarding the injury of Mrs. Naila loam was not examined. This hardly makes any difference as there was unrebutted evidence of Mrs. Naila Inam supported by other evidence on record. No other plea has been raised before me. However, I must add that the earlier plea taken on behalf of the appellant that he was victimized on account of the annoyance of the superior officers, was unsubstantial and unsubstantiated and was, therefore, rightly rejected.

6. In result the appeal is summarily dismissed. Appeal dismissed.