1989 PLP 375 (PLC)

‑‑‑S.25‑A‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Reduction in rank‑‑Short remittance of Government amount‑‑labour Court presuming that petitioner who was charged for remitting short amount of cash, had admitted his guilt, held that guilt of accused worker was proved‑‑neither any inquiry was held against employee nor any record was proved‑‑Document produced in token of admission of guilt of accused petitioner not amounting to any admission‑‑Petitioner was as such wrongly awarded punishment of reduction in rank‑‑Order of Labour Court rejecting grievance petition of worker was set aside and petitioner restored to his original position and paid difference of emoluments. Syed Ibrar Hussain for Appellant. Ch. Shafiq Ahmad for Respondent. Date of hearing: 19th July, 1988. The appeal captioned above challenges the correctness decision, dated 4‑5‑1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.9, Multan whereby the grievance petition of the appellant brought under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1069 has been dismissed.

2. The allegation for which the appellant was awarded penalty of reduction in rank was of short remittances. His grievance petition has been dismissed being time‑barred as well as on merits.

3. Let us first take up the point of Limitation. Grievance notice Exh.P.7 dated 17‑6‑1984. Since it was to he served in the same city, it could have reach the respondent on the following day i.e. 18‑6‑1984. The grievance petition was brought on 2‑8‑1984, nine or ten days before the expiry of the period of limitation. On 23‑7‑1985 it was allowed to be withdrawn with permission to file a fresh one. On the same day on which it was withdrawn it was represented to the Court. The defect for which the petition was withdrawn was of presentation. Since, according to the decision of the High Court, a grievance petition could be presented by the worker himself, a petition not presented by the worker but by the lawyer, there is no presentation, with the result that no proper petition was before the Court, which the Court could have jurisdiction to dispose of. Therefore, section 14 of the Limitation Act applies and the total period which was spent in pursuing the said defective petition would be excluded. Since on the same day on which the petition would be excluded. Since on the same day on which the petition was allowed to be withdrawn it was lodged and since at the time the previous petition was lodged still there were available to the appellant nine or ten days, the present petition was not time‑barred. The appellant pursued the previous petition bona fide since the point was very technical and was interpreted by the functionaries of a status of the Judges of the High Court. It was beyond the competency of the appellant and his counsel to note the nicety of the law on the point. As soon as he learnt that the presentation was defective, he readily applied for withdrawal with permission to bring, fresh, petition, which was allowed by the Court.

4. Soar as the merits of the case are concerned, the learned lower Court has wrongly held that the case stood proved against the appellant. Admittedly, no inquiry was held and presuming that the appellant had admitted his guilt on account of depositing the amount of short remittances, he was punished. The learned lower Court too laboured under the same mistake. No admission of the appellant is on the record. Exh.R‑9 does not amount to any admission on the part of the appellant. The officer whose designation cannot be deciphered observed I only this much, "All paid in my presence". The heading of the document is "List showing the detail of out standings appearing in the balance sheet." It is not disclosed who had prepared the balance sheet and against whom the balance was outstanding. Likewise the officer whose signatures appear below the document did not make clear who had paid the amount in his presence. The document thus had no evidentiary value to prove that the amount of short remittance was paid by the appellant. Thus, the appellant as wrongly awarded the punishment of reduction in rank and the learned lower Court wrongly dismissed his grievance petition.

5. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision and the order of imposition of punishment, the appellant is directed to be restored to his position, which he was holding at the time he was reduced in rank. He will be entitled to the difference of the emoluments of the post from and to which he was reverted. M.Y.H./574/Lh.P Appeal allowed.