DECISION ' This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 2-2-1987, passed by the Sind Labour Court No, V at Karachi, who had allowed the payment of Gratuity to the appellant not the total amount of alleged dues of Rs, 7,494 under section 25-A, I.R.O.
1969.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant claimed to have been employed in the respondent establishment as Assistant Operator and had a service for more than 8 1/2 years to his credit and was getting Rs, 686 as his last pay. He claimed that on 26-1-1985 when his services were dispensed with orally, he was not paid his legal dues amounting to Rs, 15,029 and being aggrieved he filed his grievance petition No, 65/1985 under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969 claiming certain amounts of his legal dues, but the respondent establishment had deposited only an amount of Rs, 7,535 before the learned Labour Court which was paid to him but the remaining amount of Rs, 7,494 was not allowed to him.
3. The respondent establishment, however, resisted the grievance petition on the ground that gratuity was to be granted according to the pay drawn and that the appellant had already received such payments vide Annexure R. 20 on the record, in full and final settlement of his dues and that neither in his grievance notice nor in his grievance petition and even in his evidence before the learned Labour Court the appellant had claimed various dues amounting to Rs, 15,029.55 therefore he could not maintain his petition which was liable to be dismissed.
4. Both the parties filed their affidavits-in-evidence and they were duly cross-examined. Thereafter the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence, the present appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. S.M. Kohistani, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Farooq A. Ghani the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent establishment and have also perused the record and proceedings of the case as well as the written arguments submitted on behalf of both the parties. At the very outset, I would hold that the employee having accepted the payment in full and final settlement is now estopped by his conduct to come up subsequently with the plea that the payment received was not in full and final settlement of his dues. If the payment in question was part payment as now alleged by the worker, he should have informed either the respondent management or the learned Labour Court in writing that the payment received by him was part payment and that he reserves his right to pursue his remedy for the balance amount. This admittedly the employee has failed to do. In view of this admitted position and the legal aspects of the case, I see no force in any of the contentions of Mr. S.M. Kohistani the learned Advocate for the appellant. I would, therefore, uphold the contention of Mr. Farooq A. Ghani the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent establishment that as the appellant had already received his dues in full and final settlement, therefore, he could not maintain his petition.
6. For the reasons discussed by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. I would accordingly dismiss the present appeal.