DECISION ' By this application under section 38(3-a) of I.R.O., 1969, the applicant has invoked suo motu revisional jurisdiction of this Tribunal and has prayed that the legality, correctness and propriety of the order, dated 5-1-1991, passed by the learned Labour Court in application No, 17 of 1990, may be considered by this Tribunal. It appears that the respondent, who was workman employed by the applicants, was allegedly gate-stopped from 5-11-1989. He served grievance notice upon the applicants and then filed grievance petition. In the meantime applicants passed dismissal order in writing, dated 14-5-1990 against' which also the respondent is alleged to have filed a separate case. The applicants thereafter filed a preliminary objection to the effect that the grievance petition was time-barred and that it has become infructuous after written order of dismissal was passed and after second case was filed by the respondent. The learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that questions raised by the applicants were mixed question of fact and law and therefore the same could be decided only if some evidence was recorded.
2. None present for the applicants. Respondent present and heard. I have also gone through the record available before the Tribunal.
3. With regard to the first objection of limitation the question as to when grievance notice was despatched by the respondent and when it was received by the applicants and when it was replied are questions of fact and therefore the learned Labour Court has rightly held that it was mixed question of fact and law. The grievance petition had been admitted and the right of the respondent to file an application under section 65-B of I.R.O., 1969, has not been extinguished.
4. The objection that the grievance application had become infructuous after second case was filed by the respondent in pursuance of written order of dismissal, dated 14-5-1990 also involves question of fact and will have to be considered after evidence is recorded as to whether relief sought in both the petitions is same. If the relief is same, then whether the first application would be infructuous or the second application would be hit by the principle of res judicata. Furthermore, obviously the question of pay from 4-11-1989 to 14-5-1990 is involved and evidence would have to be recorded if the respondent had received his salary and other legal dues upto 14-5-1990 when the alleged order of dismissal was passed.
5. I find no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order of learned Labour Court to call for any interference of this Tribunal in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.