1988 PLP 737 (PLC(CS))

Sardar Amanullah Khan Niazi and Muhammad Siddiq Khan Assistant for Respondents. Date of hearing: 9th January, 1988. The appeal captioned above is directed against the decision dated 23‑11‑1957 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.9, Multan, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant has been dismissed.

2. The services of the appellant were terminated by the respondents on the allegation that he had misappropriated Rs.190. No decision has been recorded on merits and the learned lower Court has dismissed the grievance petition on the ground that the grievance notice and the grievance petition were time‑barred. It has also been held that holding of inquiry was not necessary since the appellant did not file any reply to the charge‑sheet.

3. The grievance notice is dated 26‑8‑1986 and the grievance petition was brought on 22‑9‑1986. The grievance petition, therefore, was within time from the date of the service of grievance notice. The date of order of termination is 31‑10‑1982 but the case of the appellant before the learned lower Court was that he had lodged a departmental appeal which was decided on 14‑9‑1986 vide order Exh.P.6.

4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant deposed in his statement that he had lodged a departmental appeal after five days of the order of termination from service and this evidence was not rebutted by any oral or documentary evidence, therefore, the period of limitation for serving the grievance notice started from 14‑9‑1986 and thus, the grievance notice was not time‑barred. No doubt, no oral evidence to rebut the statement of the appellant was produced by the respondents but if the appellant taken the time from the decision of his appeal, then the notice was served more than a month before the appeal was decided. The date of notice is 26‑8‑1986. Proper thing for the appellant was to produce a copy of the departmental appeal. If he had not retained a copy, he should have summoned the original appeal from the respondent. Exh.P.6 shows that the appeal was dismissed as time‑barred although the words "time barred" were not used. The contents of Exh.P.6 read as under: ‑ "Your services were terminated by the Medical Superintendent, District Headquarters Hospital, Sahiwal after observing all the formalities on 31‑10‑1982. Your appeal does not lie at this stage and, therefore, is hereby rejected." Although it is not expressly said that the appeal was time‑barred but since the date of termination is given and it is said "at this stage the appeal does not lie" it is clear that the appeal was lodged after considerable delay. By merely orally stating that the appeal was lodged five days after the order of termination of services was not sufficient to rebut the contents of Exh.P.6. Since the appeal was dismissed as time‑barred and not on merits, it did not extend the period. This is not the case of the appellant that Exh. P. 6. was delivered to him on such a date that from there the grievance notice was within time. The learned lower Court has thus, rightly held that the grievance notice was time‑barred.

5. However, the finding of the learned Lower Court that it was not necessary to hold inquiry against the appellant is wrong. The mere fact that the reply to the charge‑sheet was not submitted was not sufficient for not appointing the inquiry officer and holding the inquiry. It has not been shown by the respondents that any inquiry officer was appointed and inquiry notice was issued to the appellant of course if inquiry notice had been served upon the appellant and he had not attended the inquiry, the holding of an elaborate inquiry would not have been necessary, because inquiry is always held for two purposes. One is to find out if the misconduct has been committed and the other is to give opportunity to the person under inquiry to prove his innocence.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that since the grievance notice was not given to the Medical Superintendent, it was not a valid notice as the officer upon whom the grievance notice was served was not his employer. He has also argued that since in the written statement it was contended that the grievance petition was not maintainable, it means that the grievance notice was not given to the proper authority. On the face of it the argument has no force. There is no objection in the written statement about the service of grievance notice upon a wrong person, therefore, there was no occasion for the appellant to prove that he had served the grievance notice upon the Medical Superintendent or that not he but the officer upon whom the notice was served was the employer.

7. As a result, the appeal fails on the point that the grievance notice was time‑barred and thus, is dismissed. A. E. /4921Lb.P?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.