DECISION ' This appeal is directed against a decision of the learned Fourth Labour Court, given on 20-3-1980, dismissing the grievance petition preferred by the appellant employee on the ground that it was hopelessly time-barred.
2. The case of the appellant is that he was originally employed with Messrs Commerce Bank Limited. The said Bank, however, was merged with the United Bank Limited with effect from 1-1-1975.
On merger, the Management unauthorisedly re-fixed the appellant's emoluments according to the terms and conditions admissible to the employees of the United Bank despite the provisions in the Banks (Nationalization) Act, 1974, that the terms and conditions of the employees in a nationalised Bank were to remain unaltered and unaffected. Subsequently, in consequence of the recommendations of the Wage Commission for Banks the appellant's emoluments were revised with effect from January 1975, vide respondent's circular, dated 26-6-1975, and he was paid arrears according to his revised emoluments, however, in the very next month, his basic salary was reduced by an amount of Rs,
125. He made representations against this unauthorised action of the respondent-Bank but as there has been no redress, he filed a grievance petition before the learned Labour Court after serving grievance notice on the respondent Bank. The learned Labour Court has dismissed the appellant's grievance petition solely on the ground that it was time-barred. It has pointed out that the grievance of the appellant arose on 1-7-1975, when his basic salary was reduced by Rs, 125 and even if the period during which the appellant is said to have made the representations against such reduction be excluded still the grievance petition was filed much beyond the period provided in subsections (I) to (4) of section, 25-A, I. R.
0., and hence was not maintainable.
3. The prayer of the appellant in his grievance petition is that his pay should be re-fixed and revised with effect from 1-7-1975. His grievance, thus, arose as on 1-7-1975. As provided in section 25-A, I. R.
0., he should have served a grievance notice upon the respondent-Bank within three months from 1-7-1975. However, no grievance notice was served on the respondent-Bank within this period. Even if the first representation made by the appellant against the reduction in his salary be considered as a grievance notice it was served on 22-11-1975, much after the period prescribed in section 25-A, I. R.
0. This representation was followed by second representation, dated 21-1-1976. Even thereafter the appellant kept quiet on the matter and it was not till 29-9-1977 that he sent to the respondent- Bank his grievance notice. His grievance notice thus was hopelessly time-barred as also his grievance petition. It was sought to be contended on behalf of the appellant that the appellant's grievance was a continuing one since the reduction in salary continued not only up to the date of service by him of the grievance notice on the respondent-Bank but even the filing of the grievance petition. I find no merit in this contention. It is true that the reduction in the basic salary of the appellant may have continued up to the filing of the grievance petition. What the appellant, however, was claiming was re-fixation of pay with effect from 1-7-1975. As such, his grievance arose on 1-7-1975 and the mere fact that he w being paid less salary than what he considered is admissible to hi did not enlarge the period of limitation so far as the claim his grievance mad in petition is concerned.
4. For the foregoing reasons I would concur in the view taken by the learned Labour Court the grievance notice was served upon the respondent-Bank and the grievance petition was filed much beyond the period prescribed under section 25-A, I. R. O. And accordingly the grievance petition was not maintainable. I would, therefore, dismiss this appeal.