1995 PLP 629 (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑Grievance petition‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Employee who was storekeeper, was charged with misappropriation and defalcation in respect of fertilizers in his control and was discharged from service after serving him charge‑sheet, but here was no mention of the fact whether order of discharge was served on employee‑‑‑Employee was acquitted of charges against him by Special Judge after about six years of his discharge from service and after about nine months of his acquittal employee served the employer department with grievance notice‑‑‑Grievance notice served by employee after more than seven years from his discharge from service, prima facie was time‑barred‑‑ Case was remanded for re‑trial and for specific decision on point whether order of discharge of employee, service of which upon the employee was doubtful had become effective and if so whether grievance notice served by employee upon employer department would then be time‑barred and so also grievance application filed by employee under S. 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Abdul Ghaffar Memon for Appellants. Ali Gohar Soomro for Respondent. This appeal by Sindh Agricultural Supplies Organisation arises from the order of the Sindh Labour Court No. VII, Sukkur whereby respondent Jamaluddin a Storekeeper of Kotdigi, Khairpur was ordered to be reinstated in service with full back benefits.

2. The respondent was appointed as Storekeeper on 31‑12‑1969. It was then alleged that he committed misappropriation and defalcation in respect of fertilizers of the value of Rs.1,88;

112. The case was investigated by Anti: Corruption Department and the respondent was sent up before the Special Judge, Sukkur.

3. Meanwhile the appellant SASO Organisation served the respondent with a charge‑sheet but the respondent in his statement did not admit the alleged misappropriation. This reply was given by him on 24‑2‑1979. Since the holding of enquiry was dispensed with in the show‑cause notice under Efficiency and Discipline Rules the respondent was discharged from service on 18‑11‑1981. The copy of this order is said to have been sent to Jamaluddin but there is no mention of the fact whether this order of discharge was served on him. It has merely been stated that after passing of this order Jamaluddin's employment as Storekeeper came to an end, but there is no specific finding in the order of Labour Court on this issue. Jamaluddin was acquitted by the Special Judge on technical grounds on 19‑9‑1987. It was thereafter that Jamaluddin served the SASO with his grievance notice on 8‑6‑1988. The question would arise whether this grievance notice given in respect of order of discharge dated 19‑11‑1981 was within time according to section 25‑A of the I.R.O., 1969 prima facie the grievance notice would appear' to be time‑barred.

4. The case is accordingly remanded to the Labour Court for a retrial and for specific decision on the points whether the order of discharge became effective on 19‑11‑1981 and if so whether the grievance notice would then be time‑barred and so also the grievance application under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. The case is remanded. H.B.T./2409/Lb.S Order accordingly.