1989 PLP 382 (PLC)

‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Limitation‑‑Contention raised by appellant employer that grievance petition of worker was barred by time but no finding was recorded despite raising objection in written statement‑‑From date of grievance notice it appeared that petition was not time‑barred‑‑Objection of limitation was out of question‑‑Contention repelled. Ch. Muhammad Shafiq for appellant. Syed lbrar Hussain for respondent. Date of hearing: 25th July, 1988. The appeal captioned above challenges the correctness of the decision dated 13‑3‑1980 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab labour Court No. 9, Multan whereby the respondent has been directed to be confirmed as Lady Ticket Collector grade 11 with all consequential benefits and to make the post held by the respondent permanent.

2. The respondent was posted as Lady Ticket Collector Grade‑II on 19‑2‑1962. A notification was issued, which was published in the official Gazette on 18‑1‑1975. copy of which is Ex. P‑

1. It was to the effect that all the employees who were working against the posts not as work charged or in temporary projects, should be confirmed on the competition of three years' service and the posts also be made permanent. It was further directed that if for some reasons the employee could not be confirmed, he should be given benefits of confirmed staff. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that since they are many Ticket Collectors senior to the respondent, the learned lower Court has erred in issuing direction that she be confirmed. He says that the respondent cannot be confirmed before her seniors. The prayer of the respondent made in the grievance petition is not that she should be confirmed before her seniors. If there are seniors to the respondent, obviously they would, be working as Ticket Collector Grade‑II before she was appointed as such, therefore, they are also under the same notification entitled to be confirmed, therefore, if the appellant has any such objection that there are senior to the respondent, the appellant can confirm the seniors of the respondent and the respondent. The objection, therefore, is over‑ruled.

3. However, this order of the learned lower Court is wrong that the respondent be confirmed from the date she joined service. The notification referred to above has not been given retrospective effect therefore, the respondent is entitled to be confirmed with effect from 18‑1‑1975 when the notification was published in the official gazette. ‑

4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that objection was raised in the written statement that no grievance notice was served but the learned lower Court has not recorded any finding thereon. This is true that the learned lower Court has not decided the point but the contention made in the C written statement in view of the documentary evidence present on the record is wrong. Ex. P. 4 is the copy of the grievance notice, Ex. P‑5 is the postal receipt and Ex. P‑6 is the A.D. receipt. These documents amply show that the grievance notice was sent to the appellant and was received.

5. It has been further argued that the question of limitation was raised in the written statement but no finding has been recorded thereon. The objection is that the petition is time barred. From the date of the grievance notice the petition f is not time barred. This is not the case of the appellant that the respondent had applied for being confirmed as Lady Ticket Collector and that her petition was rejected on such a date that from the said date the grievance notice was time barred. Since no advance order was passed against the respondent, no question of limitation arose. The objection, therefore, is over‑ruled.

6. As a result, the appeal is partly accepted and modifying the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, it is directed that the respondent be confirmed from 18‑1‑1975 the date of notification: M.Y.H./579/Lb.P Appeal party accepted.