1988 PLP 64 (PLC)

Laws Cited

Representation

• Muhammad Sadiq Khan for Appellants.
• M. S. Shahani for Respondent.
• Date of hearing: 2nd April, 1987.
• 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent was a permanent workman of the appellant‑Bank and his duties were primarily and mainly clerical in nature as he was, appointed as a cashier on 15‑12‑1975 and at the relevant time he was posted at Kandhkot Branch of the appellant‑Bank. On 16‑8‑1978, the respondent was served with a charge‑sheet alleging misconduct and as his reply to the charge‑sheet was not found satisfactory, therefore, the appellant‑Bank had appointed two enquiry officers. None of the enquiry officers could find the respondent guilty of the alleged misconduct in an impugn and illegally held domestic enquiry yet, he was removed from the employment on 29‑8‑1979. The respondent claimed that during this long period of about one year from 16‑8‑1978 till 29‑8‑1979, he was very unlawfully put under suspension. Thereafter the respondent had served grievance notice, dated 18‑9‑1979 through his Advocate and thereafter filed grievance petition bearing No.368 of 1979 under section 25‑A. I.R.O. , 1969, which was alleged by the Labour Court and the appellant‑Bank had impugned this order of the Labour Court before this Tribunal and this Tribunal had allowed the appeal of the appellant‑Bank holding that the service of the grievance notice under the signature of a Counsel was not valid. Thereafter, the respondent submitted a constitutional petition No.12 ‑ of 1981 before the High Court of Sind which was subsequently dismissed on 28‑4‑1983. Against the order of the High Court, the respondent had filed a petition for Special Leave to Appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this petition too, was rejected on 18‑3‑1984. That, just after the decision of the Supreme Court the respondent had served a fresh grievance notice, under his own signatures, upon the appellant‑Bank on 21‑3‑1984 and then, the present grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969 was filed. Along with this grievance petition, the respondent had also filed an application under section 65‑B of I.R.O. 1969 read with section 5 of Limitation Act.
• 5. I have heard Mr. M. Sadiq Khan, the learned Advocate for the appellant‑Bank Mr. M. L. Shahani, the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent. I have also carefully examined the record and proceedings of the case as well as have also perused the affidavit and the counter‑affidavit, filed by both the parties before this Tribunal. At the very outset, I would hold that Mr. M. Sadiq Khan, the learned Advocate for the appellant‑Bank has failed to submit anything new to what he had submitted before the learned Labour Court in support of his case. I therefore, see no force in any of his contentions. Mr. M. L. Shahani, the learned counsel for the, respondent has submitted that a notice given before the enunciation of Law by Supreme Court in the year 1980, came within an exception, and could be treated as a valid notice. He further pleaded that the decision was given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, hence, an exception could be spelt out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court alone and so the respondent's Counsel bona finely and without any gross negligence of ignorance of the statutory provision, advised the respondent to A pursue his remedy upto Supreme Court, and the respondent who was a layman, did act upon this advice without any negligence or carelessness on his part. In view of these submissions I would hold the grievance petition, of the respondent well within time. The learned Labour Court has also rightly observed that the present case of the respondent cannot be treated as being barred by the principles of res judicata.

Headnotes / Summary

Judgment & Decree