1990 PLP 788 (PLC)

The petitioner joined Railway as a Wireman‑Mechanic (Mistri) on 16‑12‑1961. In the year 1980 he applied for 365 days leave. He stated that he required leave to reconstruct the house and to settle domestic affairs. The leave was sanctioned for three months vide order dated 28‑9‑1980. The petitioner proceeded to avail the leave but did not resume duty. It is stated by him that he reported back on duty on 29‑12‑1985 but was not allowed to join. Thereafter he made repeated applications and representations. Ultimately he came to know that his services were terminated, therefore, he served the respondent No.1 with a grievance notice on 1‑7‑1987. Since his grievance was not removed, therefore, he riled to grievance petition under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. on 12‑9‑1987. The respondent No.1 contested this application. The learned Labour Court vide order dated 11‑5‑1988 accepted the same. It was held that the petitioner was not entitled to back benefits and that the respondent No. 1 can initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner for long absence. Both the parties were not satisfied with this adjudication, therefore, they filed two separate appeals before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, who accepted the appeal of the respondent No.1 while the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed. The result was that the application of the petitioner under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. stood dismissed. The petitioner has now assailed both the orders through the present Constitutional petition.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition has argued that the petitioner was not served with the charge‑sheet, therefore, whole of the proceedings including termination order are illegal. It is added that since the petitioner was not aware of the disciplinary proceedings and termination order, therefore, limitation did not start running against him.

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 had argued that the learned Tribunal rightly dismissed the application of the petitioner as time‑barred. The first petition by the petitioner to respondent No.1 was submitted by the petitioner on 29‑12‑1985 while grievance notice was issued by him on 1‑7‑1987. It is added that charge‑sheet Exh. R.4 was sent through postal receipt Exh. R.5 at the permanent address of the petitioner and the same was not received back. Thereafter the notice was published in `Daily Jang', which is placed on record as Exh. R.6 while the notice of penalty Exh. R.7 was dispatched to the petitioner through Exh.R.8.

4. I have given my anxious considerations to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. The admitted position is that the petitioner proceeded on three months leave and did not resume duty till 23‑8‑1983 when his services were terminated. The petitioner as per his own showing reported on duty on 29‑12‑1985, therefore, he must have learnt on that date that his services have been terminated. It is not possible to believe that he did not learn about the termination order till July, 1987.

5. The notices were sent at his permanent address and the same were not received back unserved by the respondent No.1. This is not all. The petitioner did not get his leave extended. This fact alone is sufficient to refuse him any relief in writ petition.

6. The petitioner tried to justify the limitation by pleading ignorance as to the order of termination. This plea was not accepted by the Tribunal, which has fully justified its order. The petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference in the Constitutional jurisdiction, therefore, this petition is dismissed, with no order as to costs. M.Y.H./N‑366/L Petition dismissed.