DECISION ' This Is an appeal against the order of the Labour Court passed under section 25-A, I. R. O. Directing the appellant to resume his duties and as well as directing the respondents to allow the appellant to work, but the back benefits and other emoluments were disallowed to the appellant. Aggrieved by the aforesaid refusal of back benefits etc., the present appeal had been filed.
2. The appellant was in the permanent employment of the respondent. The appellant claimed that he was engaged on a monthly salary of Rs, 1,000, although, he was subsequently paid Rs, 800 which he had accepted under protest. No letter of appointment was issued to him. He was also deprived of a number of other legal emoluments. On his demand. The Management was annoyed and, therefore, on 5th May, 1976 ho was asked to resign but he refused. Thereafter when he went to resume his duty as usual but he was not allowed to enter the premises and his services were verbally terminated. After the service of grievance notice, he approached the Labour Court.
3. The application was resisted on various grounds. It was inter alla pleaded that the respondent had himself remained absent and it was not true that he was not allowed to work or his service was terminated.
4. On the assessm ent of the evidence the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the appellant himself remained absent and, therefore, he was not entitled to back benefits, although, he allowed him to resume his duties with a direction to the Management to permit him to work. In respect of the ground that the appellant remained absent, the learned Presiding Officer relied upon the grievance notice dated 6th July, 1976 in which no such allegation was made. On the other hand, it was urged that this allegation was embodied in the grievance notice dated 25th August., 1976. This was rejected by the learned Presiding Officer.
5. I have considered the contentions raised before me and I am of the view that no exception can be taken to the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer. It is an admitted position that the appellant served a notice dated 6th July, 1976 complaining against the harassment. It is al an admitted position that since then he did not work. His contention that he was not permitted to resume his duties is not true as no such allegation was made in this notice which in fact was a grievance notice. Indeed, in the second notice dated 26th August, 1976 further allegations were made, but these were afterthought and could not be taken into consideration In my view the allegations in the second notice were made in order to claim the back benefits.
6. In result the appeal is dismissed.