1987 PLP 118 (PLC)

‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908) S.3‑‑Grievance petition‑ Limitation‑ ‑Requirement‑‑Section 25‑A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, held being procedural law where limitation was starting point and that whoever came in Labour Court must come within mandatory limit and with diligence. Mirza Muhammad Kazim for Appellant. Mahmood A. Ghanifor Respondents. Date of hearing: 28th August, 1986. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the impugned order, dated 14‑1‑1985, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. IV, Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant, under section 25‑A, I. R.O., 1969.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellant was a permanent workman employed in the respondent Mills. That he fell sick and got him treated by the Social Security Institution on the E‑2 Form, issued by the respondent Mills and was admitted in the Hospital, Landhi, vide his applications as Exhs. A, A‑1, A‑2, A‑3, and A‑4 as well as a Discharge Slip from the said Hospital, A‑5, on the record of the Labour Court. That on 22‑10‑1984, the appellant had applied for leave as he wanted to got him to home village, which was granted by the respondent Mills. That from there, he sent an application for the extension of the leave on the ground of his serious illness so he was admitted to the Civil Hospital, Swabi (N.‑W.F.P.), vide Medical Certificate, dated 2‑3‑1984. That as he did not recover from the illness, therefore, he again requested for the extension of leave for one month more, but this leave was refused to him, vide letters, dated 15‑3‑1984 and 2‑4‑1984. That on 19‑5‑1984, the appellant reported for duty alongwith Medical Certificate, dated 17‑5‑1984, but the respondent Mills refused to allow him to resume the duty. That, on 15‑3‑1984, the respondent Mills issued a charge‑sheet to the appellant and that due to the illness, the appellant could not participate into the enquiry, therefore, after holding an ex parte enquiry, he was dismissed from service. That as the absence of the appellant from the duty was beyond his control due to serious long illness, therefore, he submitted a grievance petition before the Labour Court, on 9‑8‑1984.

3. The respondent Mills, besides submitting their reply statement on merits of the case, they had raised basic legal objections on the maintainability of the grievance petition on its being hopelessly time‑barred. That the appellant remained under the treatment of Social Security Institution in the year 1983 from where he was discharged, on 15‑11‑1983 and was advised rest upto 20‑11‑1983, vide certificate, dated 15‑11‑1983, so, he was granted annual leave for 32 days from 20‑12‑1983 to 20‑1‑1984 with pay and fifteen days leave without pay from 21‑1‑1984 to 6‑2‑1984. That, instead of reporting for duty on 7‑21984, the appellant vide his request, dated 26‑1‑1984, was granted extension of 15 days leave without pay from 7‑2‑1984 to 21‑2‑1984 and was also informed that no extension will be granted. That, again on 22‑2‑1984, the appellant failed to report for duty and vide his request, dated 20‑2‑1984 for the extension of leave alongwith Medical Certificate, he was granted another extension of leave, as a special case, from 22‑2‑1984 till 2‑3‑1984. That, on 3‑3‑1984 the appellant failed to report for duty and again sent a letter, dated 7‑3‑1984 requesting therein that he may be granted further extension of leave for a period of one month from 3‑3‑1984 to 2‑4‑1984, and this request was received by the respondent Mills, on 13‑3‑1984 and it was not supported by any Medical Certificate. That, on 15‑3‑1984 the respondent Mills had issued a letter to the appellant informing him about the rejection of this extension of lean and this communication, admittedly was rejected by the appellant. That, as the appellant had remained absent from duty, without permission, for more than 10 days with effect from 3‑3‑1984, therefore, he was issued charge‑sheet, dated 15‑3‑1984, which was duly received by the appellant. That, again, as the appellant failed to submit his reply to the charge‑sheet, therefore, on 22‑.3‑1984, he was issued a letter of enquiry with a direction to participate in it alongwith witnesses, on 24‑3‑1984 and this letter was sent to the appellant through registered, A/D at his home address as well as his local address at Karachi and a copy of it was also displayed on the Notice Board of the respondent Mills. That the appellant did not participate in the said enquiry. so, an ex parte proceedings were held and, on 28‑3‑1984, a second show‑cause notice alongwith a copy of the enquiry report was also sent to the appellant, also directing him to submit his reply thereto as well as to appear for personal hearing. That as usual the appellant, again had failed to either submit his reply to the second show‑cause notice or to appear for personal hearing, therefore, finally he was dismissed from service, vide letter, dated 5‑4‑1984, sent to him under registered, A/D Post, at his native place and also at his local address as well as a copy of it was also displayed on the Notice Board, outside the respondent s Mills. That the appellant acknowledged the receipt of dismissal order, dated 5‑4‑1984, vide his letter, dated 13‑4‑1984, which was received by the respondent Mills, on 17‑4‑1984 and this letter of the appellant was also replied by the respondent Mills on 22‑4‑1984. That, again on 21‑5‑1984 the appellant had submitted yet another application by hand and had requested therein to re‑instate him in service, and it was false to say that, on 19‑5‑1984, the appellant had either reported for duty or had submitted any Medical Certificate or the Fitness Certificate. That it is an admitted fact by the appellant that he had received the letter, dated 5‑4‑1984 dismissing his services. That the grievance notice as well as the grievance petitions, submitted by the appellants were hopelessly time‑barred.

4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits‑in‑evidence and they were duly cross‑examined. However, after leading of the evidence, the appellant had filed an application, dated 3‑12‑1984 alongwith an affidavit for condonation of delay in filing the application under section 25‑A, I. R.O., 1969, before the Labour Court. The respondent hills had also submitted counter‑affidavit thereto. Therefore, considering this legal issue and mandatory required of Law, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order on the application for condonation of time limit, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25‑A , I . R.O., 1969, hence this appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. Mirza Muhammad Kazim, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani, the learned representative on behalf of the respondent Mills. It is an admitted position that from 3‑3‑1984 till 21‑5‑1984 he did not physically report at the gate of respondent Mills. It is also an admitted position that the appellant had duly received at his home address all the correspondence of the respondent Mills including the letter, dismissing his services with effect A from 5‑4‑1984. It is again an admitted fact that if a letter, dated 13‑4‑1984, addressed by the appellant to the Labour Officer of the respondent Mills is not treated as Grievance Notice and the second letter, dated 21‑5‑1984 addressed to the General Manager be treated as proper grievance notice, then, the grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969 filed, on 9‑8‑1984 was hopelessly time‑barred and the absence of each day in this behalf was not explained, as required by the Law. Section 25‑A of I.R.O. 1969 is a procedural law where limitation is the starting point that whoever comes in the Labour Court, he must come within the mandatory limit and with the diligence. Furthermore, there is no cogent reason or explanation for condition of each day's delay in filing the grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969, before the learned Labour Court. The contentions of Mr. Mirza Muhammad Kazim, firstly that the appellant was disable due to his sickness to report for duty or to participate in the domestic enquiry, and secondly, that the appellant, being an illiterate was not aware of the technicalities of the time limitation, under Law; also have no force as there is nothing on record to establish the same. Therefore,' the learned Labour Court has rightly dismissed the grievance petition, under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969, the appellant and I also hold the same as hopelessly time‑barred.

6. The upshot of the above discussion is that I maintain the impugned order and dismiss this appeal accordingly. ML. Y.H. Appeal dismissed.