1. ' ARSHAD NOOR KHAN, J.--- By this appeal, the appellant has challenged the legality and validity of the order, dated 25-4-2006 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No,VI, Hyderabad, whereby the grievance application filed by the appellant has been dismissed.
2. ' The facts leading rise to the present appeal in brief are that the appellant was appointed as Seasonal Worker on 12-12-1981 by the respondent and was allegedly permanent seasonal workman according to the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 and he worked during the season 2003-2004 and as usual his service was terminated after the end of the crushing season. It is further stated in the petition by the appellant that on every crushing season the appellant was being called by the respondent by issuing notice to him, but on the start of crushing season 2004-2005 the appellant was not called for. The mill was started from 20-11-2004,as such, he himself visited the mill on 21-11- 2004 and requested to the respondent to take him on seasonal work to which he was kept on hopes by the respondent. The act of the respondent in not allowing the appellant for crushing season was capricious, arbitrary and mala fide, as such, the appellant served notice under section 46(1) of the I.R.O., 2002 on the respondent, thereafter he filed application for his reinstatement before the learned Labour Court. The notice of his petition was served on the respondent, who appeared before the learned lower Court and filed written statement, inter alia, challenging therein the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the grievance notice was served after about 20 months from the date of his termination after the end of crushing seasons 2003-2004, therefore, the application before the learned lower Court was not maintainable and that the right of the seasonal worker has not been guaranteed under the provisions of I.R.O., 2002, as such, the appellant was not entitled for any relief. It is further stated in the written statement that the appointment of the appellant was purely temporary in nature and its termination does not require any notice from either party and that it was also condition precedent to the appointment letter that he will not be entitled for employment on the next season, which terms and conditions were accepted by the appellant. It is further stated in the written statement that the matter do not relate to industrial dispute, therefore, the appellant was not entitled for any relief under the provisions of I.R.O., 2002.
3. ' After pleadings of the parties, the appellant filed his affidavit in evidence who was cross- examined by the respondent. The respondent filed affidavit-in-evidence through S.M. Misbah-uz- Zaman, Administration Manager, who also filed certain documents and was also cross-examined by the counsel for the appellant. The learned lower Court after appraisal of the whole evidence brought on record, observed that the application was not maintainable and the appellant was seasonal worker and was not entitled for any reinstatement,. The appellant being aggrieved against the order passed by learned lower Court has preferred present appeal.
4. ' I have heard Mr. Ghulam Sarwar Chandio, learned counsel for the appellant.
5. ' He vehemently contended that the services of the appellant were orally terminated by the respondent and being a seasonal worker he was entitled for re-employment on start of next crushing season and the respondents have deprived off the appellant from his legitimate right guaranteed under I.R.O., 2002 and the lower Court did not apprise the legal proposition involved in the matter and wrongly dismissed the application for reinstatement of the appellant, as such, the order passed by the learned lower Court be set aside.
6. ' I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant and have gone through the material available before me.
7. It is not disputed that the appellant was the seasonal worker employed by the respondent for a particular season and he was employed for crushing sessions of 2003-2004 and after the end of the season his services were automatically terminated because of nature of his appointment. The appellant did not produce any evidence to show that prior to the crushing season of 2003-2004 and after the aforesaid crushing season he was ever appointed by the respondent as a seasonal worker. In absence of any documentary evidence to show that he was continuously working in every crushing season in the mill of the respondent, the said assertion of the appellant appears to be false and fallacious averments without supporting from any independent document.
8. Admittedly, the appellant worked as seasonal worker for the crushing season of 2003-2004 and his service were terminated after the end of the aforesaid seasons of 20th March, 2003 thereafter the appellant served grievance notice under section 46(1) of the I.R.O., 2002 on 1st December, 2004 which shows that after about 20 months from the date of termination of his earlier appointment he served notice on respondent belatedly. There is no sufficient reason or explanation put forwarded by him in support of his claim. According to section 46(1) of I.R.O., 2002 the grievance notice must be served by the employee on the employer, on his illegal termination from the service within thirty days from the date of termination of his service and after expiry of the said thirty days, if the requisite notice has not been served, the grievance of the worker could not be termed to be a lawful and the learned Labour Court has all powers to non-suit the worker who is guilty of limitation for service of the requisite notice. The learned lower Court rightly observed that the grievance notice was served by the appellant on the respondent after 20 months from the date of his termination from his seasonal work and no illegality or irregularity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant in the finding of the learned lower Court, which are based on appraisal of whole evidence available on record in arriving the said conclusion that the application filed by the appellant before the learned lower Court was hopelessly time-barred and I do not find any reason to interfere in the finding of the learned lower Court.
9. The appellant admittedly was employed as seasonal worker by the respondent for the crushing season of 2003-2004 and under the law the seasonal worker has not been given unconditional right of the reemployment before coming crushing season. After the termination of services of seasonal worker, his next employment is always treated as fresh employment instead of re- employment and fresh employment could not be claimed by the worker as a matter of right. The services of the seasonal worker is always hired by the employer keeping in view the nature, substance and demand of the work by the management and the numbers of the seasonal worker may be increased or decreased by the employer according to their need, demand and requirement of the crushing season, for which no seasonal worker could be allowed to claim fresh employment as a matter of right. The learned lower Court also appraised the whole evidence available on record as well as the case-law on the subject and after examining of the same came to the conclusion that the appellant was not entitled for re-employment and the said finding appears to be well-reasoned and no illegality has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant to upset the finding of the learned lower Court on factual aspect of the matter.
10. ' For the aforesaid reasons and circumstances, I do not find any merit in the present appeal, which is hereby dismissed summarily.