This appeal is directed against the decision of the learned VIth Labour Court, given on 4th January, 1982, dismissing the grievance peti--tion filed by the appellant workman against the action of the respondent establishment in refusing to take him for work for the cotton season of 1981-1982. The grievance petition has been a dismissed by the learned Labour Court on the sole ground that as from the evidence on record, it appears that the services of the appellant workman were terminated during the cotton season 1980-1981, both the grievance notice as given by the appellant to the respondent establishment, dated 18th June, 1981, and the grievance petition filed by the appellant workman on 18th June, 1981, are time-barred.
2. It was strongly urged by Mr. Wahid Bux, the learned representative for the appellant workman, that the learned Labour Court has misconstrued and misread the evidence in the case and the grievance was that the appellant had worked for the season of 1980-81, but when he pre--sented himself for work at the respondent establishment on 16th June, 1981, on the opening of the 1981-82 season, he was unlawfully refused to be allowed to perform his duties. No doubt this is the claim of the appellant workman in his grievance petition; but this claim stands rebutted by the admissions made by the appellant himself in his cross-examination before the learned Labour Court and another tangible evidence which has come on record. It has been admitted by the appellant in his cross-examination that on 3rd December, 1980, he had submitted an application to the Assistant Director, Labour, complaining that he had been ousted from service by the respondent establishment. He has further admitted that this complaint was in respect of the season 1980-81.
The letter of the Assistant Director (Labour) in respect of this complaint is dated 14th December, 1980 and confirms the fact that the complaint of the appellant about his removal from service pertains to the season 1980-81. Further--more, it has been asserted by the Manager of the respondent establish--ment that the services of the appellant were terminated in November, 1980 (during the season of 1980-81), as in spite of repeated warnings the appellant, who had been working as a wireman, had failed to produce Wireman's Certificate. Faced with this case of evidence Mr. Wabid Bux sought to argue that due to the good offices of the Assistant Director (Labour), the appellant had been taken back in service during the season of 1980-81, and he continued working in the respondent establishment till the end of the season 1980-81. There is, however, not an iota of evidence on record on this point. As already pointed out, it has been asserted by the witness on behalf of the respondent establishment that the services of the appellant were terminated, and not that he was retrenched at the end of the season because he had failed to obtain the certificate which alone legally entitled him to work as a wireman. The case of the appellant thus was not one of retrenchment falling within the purview of Standing Order 14, entitling the appellant to re-appointment at the commencement of the next season, but termination of services in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 12. The appellant was well aware of this position and that is why he had approached the Assistant Director (Labour) in December, 1980. Since the appellant had served the grievance notice on the employer much after the proscribed period of 3 months after his discharge from service in November 1980, and similarly the grievance petition filed by him is also much beyond the prescribed period. I would agree With the view taken by the learned Labour Court and would dismiss the appeal in limine.