2012 PLP 158 (PLC)

ABDUL HAFEEZ CHEEMA (CHAIRMAN).

This appeal calls in question the validity of the order dated 10-7-2001 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.3, Lahore whereby the grievance petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.

2. The facts unfolded by this case briefly are that the appellant was employed as Telephone Operator with the respondent company on 10-5-1999. She submitted her resignation which was accepted on 13-8-1999. She served a grievance notice on 10-7-2000 claiming inter alia that she was working as telephone operator when on 9-8-1999 Mr. Nasim Sindhu Admn. Manager of the company visited her house and obtained her resignation through coercion and duress. The respondent company in their reply refuted the assertions of the appellant and further stated that the respondent had been paid all her dues. The appellant filed the grievance petition on 3-8-2000 in the Labour Court which was dismissed vide the impugned order with the following observations:

"The petitioner badly failed to prove that the alleged resignation dated 9-8-1999 was the result of undue coercion. The grievance petition is badly barred by time. It is not maintainable and the same is rejected with costs. The file is consigned to the record room after completion within three days."

3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Labour Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record. The appellant was made to sign a pre typed resignation letter through intimidation, persuasion and pressure. She was assured that she would be re-employed. On point of limitation it is argued that no doubt the resignation was submitted on 9-8-1999 and was accepted on 13-8-1999 when the entire episode was on the assurance that the appellant would be re-engaged/re-employed. The appellant kept on addressing reminders but as there was no response she was therefore obliged to serve grievance notice on 10-7-2000 and on rejection/repudiation of the said grievance notice by the respondents the grievance petition was filed on 3-8-2000. In the given circumstances the appellant maintains that the grievance notice was within time.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent however submitted that the grievance petition was time barred. Firstly in accordance with section 25-A(1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the grievance notice should have been given within three months from the day the cause of grievance arose which in the present case is the acceptance of the appellant's resignation i.e. 13-8-1999. Therefore, the grievance notice was barred by time. Secondly, the grievance petition had been filed after an inordinate delay of over eleven months from the day of the acceptance of the resignation of the appellant for which no sufficient cause has been shown. It is added that the appellant voluntarily resigned and has brought nothing on the record to show that there was any undue pressure or coercion in this regard.

5. The cause of grievance accrued to the appellant on the day her resignation was accepted and it was incumbent upon the appellant to have brought to the notice of the employer, her grievance within a period of three months, therefore, in terms of section 25-A(1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 she however gave grievance notice after about eleven months. The contention that she had sent letters to the respondent to re-employ her, cannot affect and extend the prescribed time limit for serving the grievance notice. The reply rejecting a time barred grievance notice would also not amount to giving a ground for condoning the delay in filing of the grievance petition. The learned Labour Court has therefore rightly concluded that the grievance petition was time-barred.

6. The appellant has claimed that her resignation was a result of undue coercion and duress exercised upon her, by Mr. Nasim Sindhu the Admn. Manager by visiting her house on 9-8-1998. The witnesses examined by the appellant have not said anything to establish that the appellant was subjected to any coercion, force, or duress to resign from her job. Respondent No.2 appeared as a witness and he denied all the allegations of coercion and pressure etc. In fact he denied that he had ever visited the house of the appellant. From the evidence on record it is not established at all that the appellant was forced to resign by respondent No.2. Obviously the appellant resigned of her own accord and even did not bother to serve grievance notice within the prescribed period of three months. I have gone through the entire record carefully and am not persuaded to differ with the judgment of the learned Labour Court.

7. In this view of the matter the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. H.B.T./6/PLT Appeal dismissed.