ABDUL SALEEM Versus ZELIN LTD., KARACHI

DECISION

This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 23‑7‑1986, passed by the Sindh Labour Court No. 11. at Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant claimed to have been appointed as Personal Assistant in the respondent establishment with effect from 14‑1‑1985 and as such he was a workman within the definition of Labour Laws and that he was illegally dismissed from service with effect from 28‑2‑1985 only after putting of 30 days of service. The appellant claimed that his dismissal of service was measure of victimization and being aggrieved, he submitted a grievance petition before the learned Labour Court under section 25‑A, I.R.O.1969.

3. The respondent establishment resisted the petition on the ground that the job/work to be performed by the appellant was specified in his appointment letter, therefore, his services were rightly terminated during the training period and that it was incorrect that he was doing any clerical work. Further, it was submitted by the respondent establishment that the services of the appellant were terminated during the training/orientation period when he was found incapable for picking up the job for which he was being trained and that at the time of termination, he had received an amount of Rs.2,129 from the respondent in full and final settlement of his dues. Thus, they claimed that the appellant was not an aggrieved workman to maintain his grievance petition which was liable to be dismissed.

4. Both the parties led their respective 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. SA. Nanji, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Masood Ahmad Khan, the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent establishment and have also perused the record and proceedings of the case. It is an admitted position that at the time of termination of services the appellant had received a sum of Rs.2,129 from the respondent establishment in full and final settlement of his dues. Further, it is also an admitted position that, though it was not mentioned in the appointment letter of the appellant yet, the respondent establishment had sent to the appellant a sum of Rs.2,000 towards Notice Pay and this amount was also received by the appellant. It is a settled principle of law that if a worker receives the amount in full and final settlement of his dues, then, he does not come within the definition of an aggrieved workman, therefore, he is not entitled to maintain his grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969. In view of this legal aspect of the case, I am of the view that the learned Labour Court has passed correct impugned order and there is nothing wrong in it.

6. For the reasons discussed by me above I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same the present appeal is accordingly dismissed.

A.E./1149/Lb.S ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.