' This appeal arises from the decision, dated 31st of August, 1980 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No, 1, Lahore where by the accepting the grievance petition of the respondent directed the appellant to pay an amount of Rs, 29,991.92 within fifteen days of the order.
2. The facts are that the respondent while on leave tendered resignation and claimed his dues. The dues were not paid, therefore, he brought grievance petition under section 25-A,
1. R.
0. The petition was contested by the appellant. The territorial, jurisdiction of the Court was challenged contending that since the respondent was employed at Muzaffargarh, the Lahore Labour Court had no jurisdiction, that the respondent was not a workman as his main duties were managerial and supervisory and his monthly salary exceeding to Rs, 800, that no grievance notice was served and that the petition was time-barred. The respondent appeared as his own witness in support of his application and tendered in evidence his claim statement Exh. P.
1. He was cross-examined on behalf of the appellant but no evidence was produced on behalf of the appellant in rebuttal. The respondent in his statement urged that he had obtained leave for - three months on medical grounds and came to Lahore from where he submitted resignation on 18th November, 1979. Since the respondent tendered a resignation at Lahore and dues were refused to him here, the cause of grievance according to him accrued at Lahore and, therefore, the Lahore Labour Court had jurisdiction. No doubt the respondent was employed at Muzaffargarh and he had taken leave when he was there, but this would not show that only the Multan Labour Court had jurisdiction. Where the cause of grievance arose that Court had got jurisdiction. The decision of the learned lower Court is not without jurisdiction.
3, So far as the question of workman is concerned, the respondent no doubt admitted that his pay including allowances was Rs, 2,297 approximately and that he had power of attorney from the Bank, but these observations were not sufficient from ousting him from the definition of workman.
He said that his duties were clerical and he had been issuing reminders, collecting the returns and statements from different Branches. These were clerical duties, therefore, the fact that his pay including allowances Rs, 2,297 was not sufficient to bring him in exception (b) of section (xxviii) of the I. R. O. He admitted to be holder of power-of-attorney from the Bank, but the power-of-attorney was not brought on record. It is, therefore, unknown what were the functions given in the said power-of-attorney. Moreover, there is no evidence on the record, that the functions given in the power-of-attorney were being actually performed by the respondent. His statement that his duty was clerical and be had been issuing reminders and collecting returns from different Branches stands unrebutted as no evidence was produced by the appellant. According to the material on the record the learned lower Court was justified in holding the respondent as workman.
3. So far as the service of grievance notice is concerned, the respondent stated on oath that he had served grievance notice and brought on the record copy of which is Exh. P.
3. He missed to tender in evidence the postal receipt but the same is on the record. The date given on the copy of the grievance notice is 3rd June, 1980 and the receipt is also of June, 1980. The .Date is dim and may be 3, therefore, this receipt corresponds to the copy of the grievance notice. Copy of the grievance notice Exh. P. 3 and the postal receipt coupled with unrebutted statement of the respondent proves that the grievance notice was sent to the employer, First notice of the grievance petition was issued on 28th June, 1980. The grievance petition also bears the date as 28th June, 1980. In his statement the respondent said that his resignation had not been accepted so far. In paragraph No, 3 of his petition, he has urged that the resignation had been accepted but had been refused to adjust the dues against the loan outstanding and unreasonably insisted upon the appellant on ground first. Since the respondent was believing that his resignation had been accepted, therefore, he was justified in bringing his petition to claim the dues. So far as the question of limitation is concerned since the case of the respondent as put forth in cross- examination was that the resignation had not been accepted, no period of limitation started. So far as the respondent was concerned, the matter ended as soon as he tendered the resignation, therefore, he after waiting for reasonable period rightly brought the grievance petition without waiting for the acceptance of resignation. This is not the case of the appellant c that the resignation had been rejected and the respondent was informed about it. In cross-examination no particular date was suggested to the respondent on which the dues had been denied to him, therefore, it does not appear that the grievance notice and the grievance petition were time- barred. They could be premature but since the respondent waited for reasonable time for the acceptance of the resignation and payment of dues, it cannot be said that the action taken by him was in reality premature.
5. As mentioned above, no evidence in rebuttal was produced, therefore, according to the statement Exh. P. 1 filed by the respondent he was right to claim his dues after the deduction of his liabilities amounting to Rs, 57,605.52 from his total claim of wages including gratuity etc. Amounting to Rs, 86,597.44. The learned lower Court, therefore, rightly directed the appellant to pay the amount of Rs, 29,991.92 to the respondent.
6. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.