1989 PLP 836 (PLC(CS))

(b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑

‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Termination of service‑‑Driver recruited in Road Transport Corporation on basis of his application stating that he possessed P.S.V.Driving Licence‑‑Subsequently on verification it came to light that licence possessed by him was of H.T.V. and not P.S.V.‑‑Services terminated on that account‑‑No rules shown on record requiring appointment as Driver of only those possessing P.S.V. Driving Licence‑‑Labour Court, in circumstances, held, justified in directing reinstatement. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 7th May, 1988. The appeal captioned above emerges from the decision dated 22‑2‑1988 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.9, Multan whereby the respondent has been directed to be reinstated in service without back benefits permitting the appellant to proceed afresh against the respondent in accordance with the law.

2. Notice was issued to the respondent for 23‑4‑1988 and for today's date but the respondent did not turn up, the appeal therefore is being decided ex parte.

3. By application Exh. R. 1 dated 14‑9‑1980 the respondent applied for service and he mentioned in it that he was holding P.S.V. Licence No. 1 3()c)7/CR He was employed on 19‑10‑1980. The respondent produced thereafter licence dated 19‑10‑1981: Vide order Exh. R.2 the said licence was sent to the Superintendent of Police for verification who vide letter Exh.R. 3 replied that ii was H.T.V. and not P.S.V. licence. On this ground the services of the respondcnl were terminated. No rule has been shown to the effect that only a holder of P.S.V. licence can be employed as driver by the appellant.

4. It has been argued that the grievance notice was time‑barred. This is also wrong. The order of termination is dated 8‑1‑1986. An appeal was preferred on 13‑3‑1986 which as yet has not been decided because the copy of the final order has not been brought on the record. Since the departmental appeal is pending no B question of limitation arises because limitation would have started from the date of dismissal of that appeal. The respondent was justified in waiting for the decision of the appeal and when after considerable time it was not decided, he served a grievance notice and brought a grievance petition. Since no rule has been shown the learned lower Court was justified in directing the reinstatement of the respondent. Since the respondent has brought cross objection order permitting the appellant to proceed afresh, cannot be interfered with.

5. As a result the appeal fails and is dismissed ex parte. A.E./539/Lb. P???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.