2001 PLP 424 (PLC)

M.L. Shahani for Respondents. Date of hearing: 21st February, 2001. 4This appeal arose from the order dated 8th July, 2000 of the Sindh Labour Court No.III, Karachi, whereby the grievance petition filed by appellant Syed Hassan Askari was dismissed. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the appellant was employed as mechanic, in the Respondents' Establishment on 15‑12‑1991 and ever since performed his duties to the entire satisfaction of his employers. Despite that his services were terminated on 21‑6‑1999 on the pretext of retrenchment and Golden Handshake Scheme. The appellant's case is that on 14‑6‑1999 he was asked to resign from his service and accept employment as a temporary workman. On his refusal to do so, he was stopped from doing his duties with effect from 21‑6‑1999. He was not even paid his legal dues. Instead new workers were inducted in his place. Aggrieved by the above ‑illegal action of the Respondents Management, he took his complaint, inter alia, to the Army Monitoring Cell and the Governor of Sindh. Since his services were terminated by way of retrenchment he was entitled, even according to the Respondent's' own letter of termination, for re‑employment within a year but he was never taken' back in the employment though others were appointed in his place. His grievance having thus remained unredressed, he sent grievance notice to the Respondents' Management on 31‑3‑2000. Replying to the said notice the Respondent Management refused to redress his grievance: Left with no other choice, he filed grievance petition on 25‑4‑2000.

2. In their Reply Statement the Respondents Management repudiated the allegations of the appellant, taking a legal plea that his grievance petition was not maintainable as it was time‑barred. They also moved an application praying therein that appellant's petition be dismissed on the ground of limitation.

3. After hearing the parties' Advocates, the learned Labour Court came to the conclusion: "For the foregoing reasons the petition being hopelessly time‑barred and this Court having no jurisdiction in the matter, petition fails and is dismissed."

4. I have heard the learned counsel of both the parties at some length and have carefully considered the Labour Court's decision. Obviously the appeal had been dismissed only on the ground of limitation. In order to appreciate the Labour Court's order reference may be made to section 25‑A I.R.O. 1969. As provided in the said section, the aggrieved workman has to bring his, grievance to the notice of his employer in writing within three months of, the day on which cause of such grievance arises. The. parties in this case are at variance with regard to the date on which the cause of grievance arose. Since the appellant has challenged .the order of termination of his services by way of grievance petition, the cause of grievance, according to the learned counsel of Respondents Management, arose to the appellant on the date on which the said order was passed. However the stand taken by the appellant's learned counsel was that since the appellant's services were terminated by way of retrenchment Standing Order 14 of the 'West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 would come into play and according to the said order all the retrenched workmen were to be re‑employed within a year of their retrenchment. He therefore forced that since the appellant was retrenched from service on 21‑6‑1999 he was to be re‑employed within such year from that date and therefore he having remained unemployed ever since the date of termination of his services his cause of action arose within one year from the date of termination of his services. Thus before taking decision whether the grievance petition filed by the appellant was time‑barred, the conflict between the learned counsel of the parties with regard is the date on which the cause of grievance arose has got to be resolved. In normal course the appellant should be aggrieved by termination of his services (i.e. on 21‑6‑1999, the date of termination order) and as such the cause of grievance also given to him on the said date. The learned counsel for the Respondents' Establishment has referred to certain documents in an attempt to establish that even according to the appellant's own stand the cause of grievance occurred to him on the aforesaid date i.e. 21‑6‑1999 on which the order of termination of his services was issued. He has particularly invited attention to the prayer clause of the grievance petition filed in the Labour Court in which he had himself prayed for declaring the order of termination as illegal and for his reinstatement in service with all back benefits. He has also referred to two other documents namely A/1 which is appeal to the Governor of Sindh and A/2 which is a letter addressed to the Military Monitoring Cell, showing thereby that appellant was aggrieved by the order of termination of his services and not by refusal or reluctance of the respondents Management to take him back in service in accordance with Standing Order No.

14. The contentions of the learned counsel of the respondents Management are not without substance. The grievance notice served by the appellant on the respondents' Establishment also clearly indicates that he was aggrieved by the order of termination of his services and not by refusal or‑ reluctance of the respondents' Management to re‑employ him within one year of his retrenchment. In para. 7 of the notice he has made a prayer for withdrawal of the respondents' Management's illegal letter of termination and for his reinstatement in service with all his back benefits. All this shows that the appellant himself took the date of the order of termination of services as the date of cause of grievance to him. But he has given this notice obviously after a delay of over six months. This is clear from fact that as required by section 25‑A, I.R.O. of 1969 the aggrieved workman had to bring his grievance to the notice of his employer within three months of the day on which the cause of such grievance arises. The impugned order of termination of services having been passed on 21‑6‑1991: the appellant was required to serve the grievance notice on the respondents Management within three months of that date i.e. latest by 20‑9‑1999 but it was actually sent to the respondent Management on 31‑3‑2000, obviously delaying the notice for over six months. It appears to me that having realized that grievance notice given by him on 31‑3‑2000 was time‑barred. He tried to take the plea that his grievance arose not with passing of the order of termination of his services on 21‑6‑1999 but rather within a year from the date of such termination when he was to be re‑employed in service as required by Standing Order 14 of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. I have also considered the appellant's above plea but I regret to say that, that plea too was not helpful to him. All what the Standing Order 14 states is:‑‑

"Where any number of workmen are retrenched and the employer proposes to take into his employ any person within a period of one year from the date of such retrenchment, he shall give an opportunity to the retrenched workmen belonging to the category concerned, by sending a notice by registered post to their last known addresses to offer themselves for re‑employment, and they shall have preference over other persons, each having priority according to the length of his service under the employer:" Admittedly the appellant was terminated from service by way of retrenchment but there is no evidence on record to show that the employer (i.e. respondents' Management in this case) actually proposed to take back any of the retrenched workmen. On the contrary the respondents Management have categorically denied that they had re-inducted or re- employed any of the retrenched workmen. Furthermore as required by Standing Order 14 'referred to above the appellant had to wait for full one year from the date of his retrenchment before giving any grievance notice because his grievance would arise only after the expiry of one year from the date of his retrenchment and that he was not re‑emoployed within such span a of time. Since the date of retrenchment is same i.e. 21‑6‑1999 which is the date of termination of his services, he was to wait up to 20‑6‑2000 for his re employment and if he was not re‑employed or re‑inducted in service then alone his grievance would arise and then he was to give grievance notice within three months of such accrual of his grievance. That is to say he was to give his grievance notice latest by 20‑9‑2000 but the grievance notice actually served by him on the respondents' Management on 31‑3‑2000, was clearly premature and could not be related to his such grievance arising from refusal or reluctance of the respondents' Management to re‑employ him in service. In view of above discussion I have come to the conclusion that cause of grievance accrued to the appellant on passing of the order of termination of his service on 21‑6‑1999. He was therefore required to serve grievance notice on the respondents' Establishment within three months on the said date but the grievance notice actually served by him on 31‑3‑2000 was clearly time‑barred by delay of over six months and therefore the grievance petition filed in the wake of said time‑barred notice was not maintainable. The learned Labour Court has rightly dismissed the said petition. Consequently the appeal filed against the decision of the Labour Court is dismissed. H.B.T./40/K (L. Trib.) Appeal dismissed.