DECISION ' This judgment will cover six appeals bearing Nos.KAR-297, KAR-298, KAR-299, KAR-300, KAR-301 and KAR-302, all filed in 1999 and involving common questions of law and fact. The factual background of these appeals may be summarized as follows. Some of the respondents were permanently employed with appellants Corporation in 1990 and others in 1994. They were given different duties--some were assigned the work of pressing, some were given the work of KB/Makers and one was detailed as tailor. Somehow their services were terminated with effect from 1-1-1996.
On termination being challenged, the Labour Court by its order, dated 25-11-1999 ordered their reinstatement but without allowing them back-benefits. Accordingly they were reinstated in service vide letter, dated 1st December, 1997. As a retaliation they were given less work which affected their earning in comparison to other workers who happened to be favourites of the Management and whose earning ranged up to Rs,5000 per month. As the respondents pressed the Management for more work, their services were terminated again verbally on 2-2-1998. As soon as the Management was given grievance notice on 9-2-1998 they were called in the factory and taken back on duty on 13-2-1998, with assurance that their grievance would be redressed. In the meantime the respondents had filed appeal before this Tribunal against that part of the Labour Court' judgment, dated 25-11-1997 whereby they were denied the back benefits. Their appeal was accepted by order, dated 5-5-1998 on basis of which the Management was approached for giving them back benefits. But instead their services were terminated verbally on 16-5-1998 out of sheer annoyance. The respondents therefore, sent a grievance notice to the Management on 3-7-1998 by Registered A/D which was duly received by them on 8-7-1998 but the Management gave no reply to the notice. Thereafter, grievance petition was filed on 31-8-1998 with two-fold prayer i,e, reinstatement in service and payment of back benefits.
2. Ever since the grievance petition was filed on 31-8-1998, as the Lower Court's diary shows, the case was being adjourned from time to time on request of the appellants Corporation for filing Written Statement. After protracting the case for about three months they filed Preliminary Legal Objections instead of any formal written reply, denying however the respondents' claim of their reinstatement in service on 13-2-1998. It would appear that the Legal Objection raised by the appellants Corporation was that the respondents' grievance petitions were hopelessly time- barred. The learned counsel of the parties were heard for and against the said Legal Objection and whatever written material available on record was also carefully perused.
3. As provided in section 25-A of I.R.O., 1969 for redressal of his grievance the worker would first bring his grievance in writing to the notice of his employer within three months of its occurrence and if no reply was given to the notice of worker within 15 days or the reply received by the worker was not satisfactory then he may approach the Labour Court by filing grievance petition within two months of the receipt of such reply. For calculating the above period of limitation it would be necessary to fix the date on which the grievance of the worker occurred. In this connection the respondents' own version is that their services were last terminated on 16-5-1998. This date has been mentioned by the respondents not only in their notice of grievance but also in the grievance petitions. As pointed out earlier the appellants Corporation neither gave reply to the grievance notice nor filed any regular written reply to the grievance petition. Thus the above date of the last termination of respondents' services went unchallenged. However, in their brief Preliminary 'Legal Objections' the appellants Corporation denied that respondents were taken back on duty on 13-2- 1998 and therefore, the question of termination of their services on 16-5-1998 did not arise.
4. It is an admitted position that respondents' appeal filed against the Labour Court's order, dated 25-11-1997 in respect of back benefits was decided on 5th May, 1998 and in consequence of the said decision the appellants Corporation had to pay back benefits to the respondents. Obviously the said decision caused annoyance to the appellants Corporation and therefore, it was not difficult to understand that due to such annoyance the appellants Corporation went to the extent of terminating the respondents' services only 11 days later. In view of the appellants Corporation's denial of having taken back the respondents on duty on 13-2-1998 the only point that remained to be ascertained was whether respondents were in service of the appellants Corporation when their services were last terminated on 16-5-1998. It goes without saying that after the respondents were reinstated in pursuance of the Labour Court's decision, dated 25-11-1997, the appellants Corporation had no reasons to terminate their services. They have not elaborated this point even in their brief Legal Objections/Written Statement. It seems they have only exploited the respondent's statement inasmuch as that when they pressed for more work their services were terminated on 2- 2-1998 but after they sent grievance notices to the appellants Corporation on 9-2-1998, they were taken back on duty on 13-2-1998 with assurance that their grievance would be redressed. Unless the appellants Corporation furnished satisfactory explanation as to when and why the services of the respondents were terminated after they were reinstated in the wake of Labour Court's decision, dated 25-11-1997, their mere denial that the respondents were not taken back on duty on 13-2-1998 could not be believed nor their such denial fitted in their version of the case.
' In view of the above appraisal of the case I am convinced that grievance of the respondents arose from termination of their services on 16-5-1998, as a result of the judgment of this Tribunal, dated 5th May, 1998 in their favour. Accordingly their grievance notice sent to the appellants Corporation on 3-7-1998 which was admittedly received by the latter on 8-7-1998 was well within time and consequently the grievance petitions filed on 31-8-1998 were also within limitation period.
As such the learned lower Court had rightly dismissed the appellants' plea of the grievance petitions filed by the respondents being barred by limitation. His further order of reinstatement of the respondents, with payment of full back benefits to them was also unexceptionable and is hereby approved.
' In consequence the appeals are dismissed.