This appeal is directed against the decision of the learned VIIth Labour Court , given on 24th November, 1982 dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant challenging his termination from the service of the respondent Corporation.
2. The admitted facts of the case are that the appellant was employed as a helper at Sukkur in the respondent Corporation. It appears that the appellant was selected by the respondent Corporation for employment in their Dalmaj Project in Iraq. According to the appellant, his assignment at Iraq was for a period of 2 years commencing from October, 1979. However, before the expiry of the said 2 years, in June, 1981, the appellant was repatriated to Sukkur. On the ground of his having taken part in an illegal strike. According to the appellant, he attempted to join duties at Sukkur but was put-of for one reason or the other. On the other hand, the case of the respondent Corporation is that the appellant was dismissed from service with effect from 11th June, 1981, vide Office Order, dated 14th June, 1981 by the Project, Manager, Dalmaj Project, Iraq, which order is stated to have been sent to the residential address in Pakistan of the appellant as available with the M. C. P. It is further the case of the respondent Corporation that on 21st September, 1982 the appellant had received his dues from the respondent Corporation in full and final settle--ment. The learned Labour Court has dismissed the appellant's grievance petition on the ground that as the grievance notice was not served upon the respondent Corporation in time the grievance petition has not been filed in accordance with the provisions of section 25-A, I. R. O.
3. According to the affidavit filed by the appellant himself- before the learned Labour Court , he had returned from Iraq on his own expenses on 24th June, 1981 and had reported for duty at Sukkur on 27th June, 1981 but was not taken on duty and was kept on false promises. He has further admitted in the said notice that on 21st September, 1981 he was paid a sum of Rs. 3,034 though according to him a further amount of Rs. 7,000 is outstanding against the respondent Corporation as his dues. There are thus 2 crucial dates on which the cause of action arose in the case of the appellant. The first is 27th June, 1981, when he is said to have reported for duty at Sukkur but admittedly was not taken on duty. The second date is 21st September, -1981, when admittedly he was paid an amount of Rs. 3,034 by the respondent Corporation at Sukkur. Evan if the said amount be not a full and final payment of the dues of the appel--lant, the payment of the said dues, without taking the appellant on duty, indicates that the respondent corporation had decided not to take back the appellant on duty. This conclusion is supported by the fact that the letter of termination of services of the appellant, dated 14th June, 1981., was sent to the residential address of the appellant in Pakistan and a copy thereof was also sent to the Area General Manager of the respondent Corporation at Karachi. In spite of, the fact that the appellant was refused to be taken up on duty either when lie attempted to join duties at Sukkur on 27th June, 1981 or on 21st September, 1981, when he was paid his dues, the appellant failed to serve the grievance notice until 31st January, 1982. The grievance notice was thus hopelessly time-barred. Since the prerequisite for filing a valid grievance petition under section 25-A,
1. R. O., is the service of the grievance notice by the employee within 3 months of his grievance having arisen, the grievance petition was clearly not maintainable. I would accordingly concur in the view taken by the learned Labour Court and would dismiss the appeal in limine.