ZAINUDDIN Vs. DY LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved falls within very small compass. Second Respondent was an employee of the petitioner. His services were terminated by issuance of a notice dated 22-1-1983. That notice was delivered to the second respondent on the same day itself. He filed an appeal before the first respondent on 13-4-1983. According to the petitioner the appeal filed on 13-4-83 was out of time and so the first respondent should not have entertained the appeal. In this view the order passed by the first respondent in that appeal name by Ext. P1 is illegal and has to be quashed.

(2.) R.3 of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments R.1961 provides that an appeal under S.18 of the Act should be preferred by the employee within 60 days from the date of delivery of the order terminating his services with the employer. It further states that the date of 60 days should be reckoned from the date on which the order is delivered to the employee either personally or by prepaid registered post etc., and the date of delivery should be taken as the date when the letter would have reached the employee in the ordinary course of post. The notice terminating the services of the second respondent was dated 22-1-83. It was delivered to the second respondent on the same day. Therefore, it is argued that the period of 60 days must be counted from 22-1-83 and that the appeal filed on 13-4-83 is barred by limitation.

(3.) It is conceded before me that no order terminating the service of the second respondent, other than the notice dated 22-1-1983, was served on him. The notice dated 22-1-1983 is not in evidence. S.18 of the Shops and Commercial Establishments Act provides that no employer should dispense with the services of an employee without giving him at least one month's notice or wages in lieu of such notice. The petitioner has no case that the second respondent was paid wages in lieu of one month's notice. The notice served on the second respondent on 22-1-1983 must be taken as the one month's notice contemplated by S.18 of the Act. The period of limitation prescribed by R.3 mentioned above is not to be reckoned from the date of that notice. The period is to be reckoned from the order terminating the service of the employee. No order terminating the services of the employee was issued by the petitioner. The period of 60 days mentioned in the Rule cannot be reckoned from the date of the notice envisaged by S.18. That notice provides for the termination of the service on the expiry of a period of one month. So the service of the second respondent was terminated only on 22-2-83 and the period of limitation under R.3 must be reckoned from that date. If so reckoned the appeal filed by the second respondent is within time.