1982 PLP 754 (PLC(CS))

Dear Sir, In response to your letter No. KTC/5015/Pers/80/5635 dated: 9th September, 1980 wherein I have been informed that my services have already been terminated and therefore I cannot be taken on duty. I regret that no reason of termination of my services has been assign ed in the under reference letter. You are, therefore, requested to please vacate your above order which is given to me because of my trade Union activities. I am the General Secretary of Karachi Transport Corporation Workers Union which is Collective Bargaining Agent in the establishment and just to keep me out, of the reach of my members I have been served upon the under. Reference letter. In the light of above facts you are requested to please withdraw the letter No. KTC/5015/Pers/80/5635 dated 9th September, 1980 and let me perform the duties as usual. Please treat this letter as notice under section 25‑A of

1. R. O. 1969. Yours faithfully, Copy to: (1) The D. M., K. T. C. Orangi Depot, Karachi. (Sd/‑) (2) The K. T. C. Workers Union. (MUHAMMAD RAFIQ) (3) P.N.F.T.U., Karachi. Cond. T. No. 3066 406, Qamar House, M.A. Jinnah Road, Dated: 4th October, 1980. Karachi. 3 The precise contention of Mr. Sirajul Haq Qureshi is that as the respondent was dismissed from service vide order, dated 31st August 1981, while the grievance notice makes reference to the letter, dated 9th September, 1980 informing him that his services had already been termi nated, and the grievance notice further makes a demand merely for the withdrawal of the said letter of 9th September, 1980, the respondent could not prefer a grievance petition against the termination of his services which was effected by the earlier letter of 31st August, 1980. I regret that I find no force in this contention. The grievance notice of the res pondent, which has been reproduced in in extenso above, is clearly direct ed against the termination of services of the respondent, It is, therefore, immaterial if the grievance notice does not refer to the letter or order by which the services of the respondent had been terminated. It may further be pointed out that as the respondent was admittedly in jail with effect from 25th September, 1979 up to 1st September, 1980 and neither the charge‑sheet nor the order of dismissal were served upon him, he pre sumably imagined that his services had been terminated by the letter, dated 9th September, 1980, and hence has referred to the said letter in his grievance notice. The law does not provide for any particular form in which the grievance notice has to be given. If therefore, upon a perusal of the grievance notice it can be ascertained what is the grievance which the, workman wishes to bring to the notice of his employer, the notice should be considered to be a valid and proper on. I am, therefore, satisfied that the grievance notice of the respondent, dated, 4th October, 1980, is in accordance with law and was directed against the respondent's grievance of termination of his services.

4. It was next contended by Mr. Sirajul Haq Qureshi that inasmuch as the grievance notice does not make a demand for payment of back benefits, therefore, the respondent was not entitled to tile or maintain grievance petition for award of back benefits. It may, however, be pointed out that the award of back benefits is a consequential relief to the re‑instatement in service of a workman and since the respondent had served a proper grievance notice on his employer against the termination of his services, he could properly claim in his grievance petition award of back benefits. Subsection (5) of section 25‑A,

1. R. O., confers wide powers upon the Labour Court dealing with a grievance petition to pass such orders thereon as may be just and proper in the circumstances of the B case. The Labour Court was, thus, fully entitled in law to award back benefits to the' respondent, despite the fact that no specific claim for back benefits was made by the respondent in his grievance notice.

5. As the respondent was not served with the charge‑sheet the notice of the enquiry or the dismissal orders, the covers containing which were returned undelivered by the postal authorities to the appellant corporation on account of the fact that the respondent workman was in the jail at the relevant time, it must be held that the respondent has been given no opportunity to meet the charges against him or showing justification for his absence. In consequence the orders of dismissal from service of the respondent must be held to be invalid and the learned Labour Court rightly set aside the same and ordered the reinstatement in service of the respondent.

6. There remains the question of award of back benefits to the respondent. Admittedly the respondent remained in jail with effect from 25th September, 1979 up to 1st September, 1980, i.e. for a period of al most one year. This imprisonment was awarded to the respondent by a Summary Military Court. Admittedly for this period of about one year the respondent neither served the appellant corporation nor was h in a position to do so. Since it was on account of his own actions that the respondent was awarded imprisonment and was thus not in a position to attend to his duties of the appellant corporation, the latte cannot in ale fairness be saddled with the wages of the respondent at least for this period. Even for the subsequent period I am of the view that the respondent is not entitled to full back benefits as the appellant corporation appears to have honestly believed that due to the conviction of the respondent by a Martial Law Court the respondent had become disentitled to re‑instatement in service. Mr. Shibli, however, rightly pointed out that the appellant corporation 'did not terminate the services of the respondent on account of his conviction by Military Court or refused to take him back on that account but the charge against him, upon which the dismissal orders were founded, was his mere absences from duty for a period exceeding ten days. Taking all these circumstances into consideration I would modify the order of the learned Labour Court granting the respondent workman full back benefits and would instead award the respondent fifty per cent. of the benefits with effect from 2nd September, 1980.