DECISION ' These five appeals call in question the order of the Labour Court No,V1 at Hyderabad whereby their petitions for reinstatement in service were dismissed. Appeal No, 593 of 1993 viz. Teeja alias Hira is on behalf of 23 persons who had originally filed separate petitions, which had been amalgamated and disposed of by a common order. The other petitions in Appeals Nos. 594, 595, 596 and 597 of 1993 were dealt with separately. As the genesis and the course of the dispute in all the appeals is identical, in particulars and details, I propose to dispose of them by a common decision. The circumstances in which these arose, in a nutshell, are as follows:-- ' The respondent-Company had some 60 Hindu employees on its roll of workers. It appears that as a result of the demolition of Babri Mosque in India, the City of Hyderabad was gripped by tension, and those 60 workers felt very insecure about the safety of their life and limb. They had not reported to the factory for a week and on the 4th of November, 1989 they had turned up in full strength and according to the respondents had told them that they could not continue to work, unless the management assured them safety and protection. The respondents are stated to have expressed their inability in the matter. However, the version of the petitioners was that they had been told by the respondent that they were being warned by the MOM Party to remove the Hindu employees from their employment or face their wrath. However, when after a few days they had enquired from a leader of the aforesaid group they learnt that they had nothing to fear from them.
It was thereafter that they had gone back to their work on the 4th of November but the management had refused to take them back on their work. Instead they had obtained their signatures on certain documents and also made some payments towards their wages. When they had again gone after 10 days the respondents had declined to take them back on the ground, that they were no more in their employment.
2. Out of the alleged strength of 60 or so, 32 workers had sent grievance notices on the 30th of January; 1990 and later filed the petitions.
3. One of the contentions raised in the written reply filed on behalf of the respondent was that as the grievance notices were sent on the 30th of January, 1990, and as borne out by the envelop they have served on the 12th of February, the alleged date of termination being the 4th of November, the petitions were time-barred being beyond three months. It was further averred that the petitioners had left their service of their own free-will and volition and had signed the vouchers in token of the receipt of their wages and other dues duly brought on the record.
4. The Labour Court agreeing with the contention of the respondent dismissed the petitions as time-barred and also on merit.
5. Admittedly the notices had been received by the respondents on the 12th of February and three months from the date of quitting their job would expire on the 4th of February. The learned Presiding Officer had stopped by saying that the bar of limitation would be attracted, as the date of service fell beyond three months' period. However, Mr. NA Talpur on behalf of the respondent had referred me to a decision of this Tribunal namely M/s. Nawab & Company v. Yakoob and 15 others 1982 PLC 37 wherein it was held that the grievance notices must be brought to the knowledge of the employer within a -period of three months; the fact that it was despatched within the said period was not enough.
6. Looking to the vagaries of the postal service and looking to the state of law I am afraid, I cannot agree with this view. The petitions in my humble view were not barred by time.
7. It is not denied that passions were simmering against Hindus in general at Hyderabad during that time. On the showing of the appellants themselves they had remained away from work for a few days to know whether dire threats had been extended against their safety by the MQM Party.
They had visited the factory after a break of about 10 days. The signing of the thumb-impression of the documents are not denied in toto, though it is said that they had been paid these towards the outstanding wages. But there are more than one vouchers. It is also to be seen that even after this flurry of signing documents and putting thumb-impressions they had remained quiet for a long period and stirred into activity by despatch of their notices towards the end of January. As against this there are vouchers and receipts which has been supported by the evidence of 5 witnesses each from the side of the respondent in all these sets of cases. There is the evidence of the Manager and the Assistant Manager and Labour Officer in regard to the resignation and various payments. There is also the evidence of attesting witness Bashir and of the clerk who had prepared the vouchers and receipts. The circumstances of the case leave no manner of doubt that struck by panic, the appellants had tendered their resignation and collected all the payments and decided to stage the came back when the horizon had cleared.
8. Rana Mehmood Ali Khan, learned Representative for the appellants had pointed out some minor discrepancies where Haji Habib the Manager had mentioned the appellants being paid on the 5th, 6th and 7th, while the others talked only about the 5th and whether it was the Labour Officer or the .
Manager to whom they had gone and offered to tender their resignation. These will be inconsequential.
9. It appears that the thumb-impression of Teeja was referred to the Finger Print Expert and the report being in the positive had been acted upon by the learned Presiding Officer. The very fact that the Expert was not examined was enough not to look in that direction. Otherwise too it could bind only one person namely Teeja and not others. So this can be left alone. But the evidence led on behalf of the respondent in the circumstances of the A case hardly leaves any doubt that the version as put forward by them approximates with truth and I have no hesitation in affirming the order of the Labour Court.
10. As a result the appeals are dismissed.