1989 PLP 427 (PLC)

‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Policy Letter No. 831‑B/132/XIV dated 21‑4‑1985‑‑Termination of services‑‑Employee appointed as a substitute waterman, worked at every occasion for more than one year‑‑Before date on which he was lastly discharged from service, policy letter dated 21‑4‑1985 by which all substitutes who had worked for one year were to be absorbed on regular basis, had come into force‑‑Case of employee, who had every occasion worked for more than one year, was covered thereunder‑‑Labour Court, however, failed to decide point of limitation which was raised by employer in his written statement so far as service of notice was concerned‑‑Case remanded to lower Court with direction to redecide case alongwith point of limitation after giving opportunity to both parties to produce evidence. Ch. Noor Hussain for Appellant. Bashir Ahmad, Representative for Respondent. Date of hearing: 16th July, 1988. The appeal captioned above emerges from the decision dated 29‑3‑1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent for his reinstatement in service was accepted and he was directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.

2. The facts are that the respondent was appointed as a substitute waterman on 24‑2‑1983. He continued in service upto 22‑1‑1985 when he was relieved and directed to report to the Divisional Superintendent for further orders. On 31‑10‑1985, he was again given duty as Waterman a Deona Division from 1‑11‑1985. He was again spared on 23‑2‑1986 and directed to report to the Divisional Superintendent's office. On 6‑10‑1986 he is alleged to have been given discharge order to the effect that he had been discharged on 23‑2‑1986. The respondent based his grievance petition on a policy letter No. 831‑B/132/XIV dated 21‑4‑1985, copy of which is Ex. P. 2, wherein it was directed that all persons, appointed on ad hoc basis or as substitute against permanent posts working for one year be absorbed on regular basis and breaks of one day be ignored by grant of leave due. From the service history of the respondent reproduced above, it is apparant that he had worked at every occasion for more than one year. Before the date on which he was lastly discharged from service, the policy letter mentioned above had come in the field. RW‑1 stated in cross‑examination that Munawar Hussain, waterman, working at Gakhar Railway Station, had died and, in his place the respondent was posted as substitute.

3. In the written statement question of limitation was raised but the learned lower Court has not answered it in its judgment. The services of the respondent were terminated on 23‑2‑1986 but the grievance notice is dated 20‑10‑1986. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that the discharge order was conveyed to the respondent on 6‑10‑1986, therefore, the grievance notice is within time from the said date. The letter dated 6‑10‑1980 is not addressed to the respondent. It is from Station Master, Gakhar Mandi addressed to A.P.O. Lahore. No doubt it relates to the respondent but this is wrong that it was addressed to the respondent and delivered to him. Moreover, it contains the first date of discharge i.e., 22‑1‑1985 and not the last one. So, there is no force in the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that the cause of grievance arose to the respondent on 6‑10‑1986. Since the learned lower Court has not decided this point, it seems proper to remand the case and to give further I opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence on the point.

4. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the case is remanded to the learned lower Court with the direction that after allowing opportunity to both the parties to produce evidence, the case be redecided alongwith the point of limitation. M.Y.H./568/Lb.P Appeal accepted.