2006 PLP 301 (PLC)

MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, J

This appeal is directed against the order dated 11-9-1998 whereby the Grievance Petition of the Appellant was dismissed by the IIIrd Sindh Labour Court, Karachi.

2. In brief, the facts of the case as pleaded by the Appellant are that he was working on a permanent job with the Respondent. He was informed on 19-1-1998 through letter of Joint Director Labour that ,he was dismissed from service. The Appellant claims that he was not served with the order of dismissal and that his dismissal from service was violative of law. Accordingly, after service of grievance notice the Appellant filed Grievance Petition in the Labour Court, which was registered as Application No. 157/1998.

3. It seems that instead of filing written reply, preliminary legal objections were filed on behalf of the Respondents wherein it was pleaded that the Grievance Notice served by the Appellant was barred by time. In support, the Respondents filed photostat copies of dismissal letter dated 27-11-1997 and 26-11-1997 along with photostat copy of postal receipt.

4. The legal objections submitted on behalf of the Respondent Management were resisted by the Appellant. However, the Labour Court after hearing the parties, dismissed the Grievance Petition solely on the ground that it was barred by time and, thus, not maintainable in law.

5. It is contended on behalf of the Appellant that the order passed by the Labour Court was in violation of law as merely on the basis of photostat copy of postal receipt a Grievance Petition cannot be held to be barred by time thereby debarring the Appellant from seeking redress of his grievance.

6. The order of the Labour Court was defended by the Respondent contending that the Appellant was issued a letter of dismissal which was sent to him by registered post and a postal receipt thereof was produced before the Labour Court which was sufficient to prove service.

7. The contentions raised on behalf of the parties have been considered and the material placed on the record has been perused.

8. At the outset it must be stated that the grievance petition could not be equated with a civil suit, Neither all the rigours of Code of Civil Procedure could be applied to the Labour cases; nor all the clauses of Rule 11 of Order VII of the Code could be enforced. Be that as it may, the dismissal of grievance petition summarily would be governed by clause (d) of Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. Understandably the above clause is a penal provision, and as is the case, all penal provisions, have to be construed strictly, and its cope should not be extended beyond the necessary intendment. Even under the above provision of C.P.C. the Court is bound to reject a plaint where the suit appears to be, prima facie, barred by law, from a perusal of the statement in the plaint, wherein no further inquiry is needed.

9. In the case in hand, the Applicant/Appellant specifically asserted that he received the letter on 19-1-1998 whereby he came to know that he was dismissed from service. He further pleaded that prior to that he did not receive any order in this regard.

10. In view of such positive pleading on the part of the Applicant it could not be assumed that the petition was prima facie barred by time. Certainly it was a question of fact which needed proper inquiry, and necessitated recording of evidence.

11. Admittedly, none of the parties was allowed to lead evidence, as such there was no justification for the Labour Court to arrive at a conclusion as to whether letter of dismissal was, in fact, sent or served. Merely a photostat copy of postal receipt would not be enough proof unless it is produced in evidence that a worker was served with a letter of dismissal. As a matter of fact, the letter of dismissal dated 26-11-1997 does not show as to from what date it was effective. Resultantly, the Management had to issue a subsequent letter dated 27-11-1997, however the postal receipt bears the date of 26-11-1997.

12. In the given situation, dismissal of the grievance petition by the Labour Court summarily was violative of law thus untenable. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. The order passed by the Labour Court summarily dismissing the grievance petition as being barred by time is set aside. The case is remanded. It shall be deemed to be pending before the Labour Court. The Labour Court is directed to frame an issue with regard to limitation of the application besides the merits of the case and dispose of the same in accordance with law. H.B.T./M-35/K Appeal allowed.