1997 PLP 107 (PLC)

1995 PLC 393 and PLJ 1980 Tr.C. Lahore 79 ref. Farooq Zaman Qureshi for Appellant. Muhammad Ijaz Chaudhry for Respondent. Date of hearing: 25th February, 1996. Learned Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, on 10‑12‑1995 dismissed Jameel Akhtar's grievance petition filed under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969; and has come up in appeal to this forum.

2. It is a simple matter, as the grievance petition has been treated as premature by the Labour Court. Learned counsel for the appellant has cited a ruling of this Tribunal, reported as 1995 PLC 393, to support his contention that a grievance petition could not be chucked out on the sole ground of the same having been filed before expiry of 15 days, following service of the grievance notice. It has been observed in the aforesaid authority that subsections (2) and (4) of section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance do not enact an embargo on an employee to file a grievance petition before expiry of fifteen days from the date of service of his grievance notice. The period of fifteen days is provided to an employer to give a decision on the dispute agitated before him by an employee by way of grievance notice. If an employee in view of urgency of his grievance is constrained to file a grievance petition in the Labour Court before expiry of period of fifteen days from the date of service of the grievance notice, the Labour Court can wait till the expiry of the above period to see what decision has been passed by the employer, meanwhile. But dismissal of the grievance petition on this ground would not be justified.

3. The learned lower Court has endeavoured to enunciate the correct legal position by trying to distinguish to above ruling. Reference has also been made to PLJ 1980 Tr. C. Lahore

79. Although the Labour Court may not hasten to dismiss a grievance petition having been filed within 15 days after service of the grievance notice, it would not be proper, on the part of the Court, to entertain a grievance petition that has been submitted prior to service of the requisite notice. Admitted position in the present case is that the grievance notice was issued on 20‑9‑1994, while the grievance petition had been filed a day earlier on 19‑9‑1994. There cannot be two opinions about the legal proposition that the petition having preceded the notice must be treated to be premature and un proceedable. The Labour Court has failed in that regard on certain other reported cases as well. Jameel Akhtar had managed to stay on his assignment, on the strength of the stay order issued in routine by the then Presiding Officer of the Labour Court on 19‑9‑1994, which order was vacated by the present incumbent of the post on 10‑12‑1995, on dismissal of the grievance petition. I have no option but to uphold the impugned decision. The appeal has no merit and is hereby dismissed with of course no order as to costs. H.B.T./814/Lb.P ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeal dismissed.