' MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LAGHARI, J---This appeal is directed against the order dated 31-1-2001 passed by Sindh Labour Court No,1 Karachi whereby the grievance petition filed by the appellant was dismissed on the ground that no secured or vested right of the applicant was infringed and that the application was barred by time.
2. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that the appellant/appellant was in the employment of the respondent. Since the respondent management was allegedly not comfortable with the appellant it was determined to get rid of him and a conspiracy was hatched against the appellant through Chief Manager of the branch wherein the appellant was working. The Manager prevailed upon appellant and induced him to apply for VRS scheme. Though the appellant was assured and promised for giving him extra/additional benefits over and above the scope of the scheme yet applicant/appellant was forced to retire vide retirement/relieving order dated 2-12-1997 without allowing him extra benefits as promised to him. He made several protests but his grievance was not redressed. Hence, he approached the Labour Court by filing the application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969.
3. The respondents filed preliminary legal objections along with written statement.
' It was pleased that the claim of the applicant was not covered by any law, award or settlement, thus he had no secured or guaranteed right to agitate the claim, it was pleaded that no grievance notice was served by the appellant before approaching the Labour Court and that the grievance petition was hopelessly barred by time. Besides that the claim of the appellant was resisted on merits pleading that the appellant/applicant voluntarily opted for golden handshake scheme without any element of compulsion or inducement. It was denied that any assurance or undertaking of any sort to grant any additional benefits was given to the appellant. It was pleaded that the appellant stood retired under terms of golden handshake scheme as specified in circular dated 29-10-1997.
4. Learned Labour Court after hearing the parties arrived at the conclusion that the grievance petition of the applicant/appellant was not maintainable and accordingly dismissed the same vide order impugned in this appeal.
5. Arguments advanced at the bar by learned counsel for the parties have been appreciated and material placed on the record has been perused.
6. It is indisputable fact that the applicant himself submitted an application addressed to the chief manager of the respondent dated 19-11-1997 photostat copy of which is annexed with the petition and it reads as under:-- "The Chief Manager, ' Muslim Commercial Bank Limited, North Napier Road Branch, Karachi.
Dear Sir, VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT ' In terms of Head Office Circular No,HO/GEN/HRD/366 dated 29th October, 1997. I offer voluntary retirement from Bank's service further I shall be highly obliged if 645 days leave due to me are encashed on full pay. Entitlement for the year 1997 not included.
My particulars are as under: NAME MUHAMMAD SALEEM NAGANI.
EMP. NO. 08280.
DATE OF APPOINTMENT. 19-6-1973 DATE OF BIRTH 11-6-1953 BASIC PAY Rs,5610.
' I have completed about 24 years and 5 months service therefore I request your goodself to please accept my application for retirement and settle my dues at your earliest convenience. Yours faithfully, (Sd.) dated 19-11-1997 (MUHAMMAD SALEEM NAGANI) Assistant."
7. The competent authorities of the bank accepted the request of the applicant/appellant for retirement in terms of Circular No,HO/HRD/ GEN/366 dated 29-10-1997 and the applicant was relieved of his duty on 2nd December, 1997 as apparent from the letter dated 2-12-1997 attached by the applicant along with his grievance petition.
8. However the applicant along with his grievance petition has filed photostat copy of certain letters claimed to have been issued by the chief manager to superior officers recommending for grant of certain additional benefits.
' Nevertheless as contained under section 25-A of I.R.O. 1969 (renumbered as section 46 of I.R.O.
2002) "A worker can approach the Labour Court for redressal of his grievance only in respect of any right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law or any award or settlement. Even if it is assumed that the appellant was given some assurance by Branch Manager at his level for grant of additional benefits for opting for retirement, such assurance, by no means would be transformed into "a right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law or any award or settlement." As manifestly stipulated under the law.
' Indeed any assurance, either oral or written, given by the agent of any of the parties, will have no overriding affect on the provisions of a statute. In such circumstances, the grievance petition would be simply not maintainable.
9. Needless to state that service of grievance notice upon employer is condition precedent to be complied with before approaching Labour Court for redressal of the grievance.
' According to the pleadings of applicant himself, as contained in Para. 27 of the petition, cause of action in the first instance arose to the applicant on 14-11-1997 and subsequently on 3-12-1997 when the applicant stood retired from service. On perusal of the R&Ps of the Labour Court it transpires that the grievance petition was presented before the Labour Court on 8-4-2000 i,e, after expiry of more than two years. The applicant/appellant in his grievance petition has stated that the cause of action lastly arose to him on 9-12-1999 when he served the legal notice upon the respondents through his legal counsel. The above assertion is absolutely untenable for the simple reasons that the cause of action arose the applicant in November and December, 1997 and time started running from the said date. It is not to the choice of the applicant/appellant to approach the Labour Court at any moment but the statute has prescribed a period of limitation for approaching the Labour Court. The law provides that the aggrieved worker has to bring his grievance to the notice of his employer in writing either himself or through shop steward or collective bargaining agent within one month of the day on which cause of such grievance arises.
In case the employer fails to attend to the grievance of the worker within fifteen days the worker shall have to take the matter to the Labour Court within a period of two months after the date of communication of the grievance to the employer or from the expiry of the period of fifteen days.
10. It is crystal clear that the appellant/applicant did not file the petition within the period stipulated under law and these facts are obviously evident from the contents of the grievance petitions filed by the petitioner himself and no further inquiry was needed in the matter.
11. The grievance petition of the appellant/applicant is yet marred by another infirmity. The statute has provided for bringing the grievance of worker to the notice of his Employer, in writing either by the worker himself, or through his shop steward, or Collective Bargaining Agent. No other mode has been prescribed. Resultantly the legal notice served through Advocate would not be permissible and thus of no consequence, as in the instant case.
12. The above discussion leads to an irresistible conclusion that none of the secured or guaranteed right of the appellant/applicant were infringed or violated to entitle him to invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court, coupled with the fact that the grievance petition was patently barred by time as manifestly apparent from the averments made in the petition itself. The Labour Court therefore rightly dismissed the grievance petition as in the circumstances narrated above recording of evidence was an exercise in futility.
' Order passed by the Labour Court being unexceptionable needs no interference consequently the appeal is dismissed.
' These are the reasons for the short order passed on 16-2-2006.