1976 PLP 131 (PLC)

Appeal No. 248 of 1974, decided on 14th September 1974. 5. 25-A-Petition to Junior Labour Court-Condonation of delay- Petition filed much after prescribed limitation period-No application for condonation of delay submitted-Decision of Junior Labour Court for condonation of delay, in circumstances, held, not justified. District Manager, Government Transport Service, Lyallpur has preferred this appeal against the order dated 21st June 1974 passed by the Junior Labour Court, Ferozwala whereby an application made by the respondent under section 25-A of the I. R. O., 1969 for his re-instatement and conse quential benefits was accepted and he was ordered to be re-instated with all back benefits. The case of the petitioner respondent as per his statement in the Junior Labour Court is that he joined Government Transport Service as a Checker about 6 or 7 years before the institution of the petition. While on leave from 15th April 1973 to 23rd April 1973 he fell ill. He informed the Assistant Traffic Manager, Government Transport Service, Sheikhupura about his illness by telegram, dated 23rd April 1973 and after that he sent a medical certificate to him through his relative but he refused to receive it and directed t is relative Qasim to Lyallpur. The certificate was presented to the District Manager, Lyallpur but he too refused to receive it. The petitioner respondent further alleged that after recovery he went to Sheikhupura on 30th December 1973 for resuming duty but the Incharge of the Bus Stand told him that he had been dismissed from service. After that a grievance notice was sent to the appellant but to no avail. The respondent resisted the petition and raised a preliminary objection that the application is grossly barred by time. The Junior Labour Court recorded the evidence of the parties, condoned the delay and accepted the petition by its order, dated 21st June 1974. The learned representative for the appellant has contended that the petition in the Junior Labour Court was grossly barred by time and since it was not accompanied by any application for condonation of delay, there fore, there was absolutely no justification to condone the delay. He argued that the cause of grievance had arisen on 24th April 1973 the date of dismissal of the petitioner respondent and the petition was filed long after the period prescribed in section 25-A of the I. R. O. on facts he contended that the respondent remained absent without leave for about 9 months and his dismissal from service is perfectly in order. The file shows that the service of the petitioner were terminated with effect from 24th April 1973 and he filed the petition in the Junior Labour Court on 14th February 1974. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the petition is within time as the petitioner came to know about his termination on 30th December 1973 when he went to resume duty at Sheikhupura. This contention is without any force. In cross-examination petitioner-respondent has admitted that he sent his relative Qasim to A. T. M. Sheikhupura on 15th October 1973 and on the same day he informed him that he had been dismissed from service with effect from 24th April 1973. This means that on 15th October 1973 the respondent had the acknowledge that he had been dismissed from service with effect from 24th April 1973 and if it be assumed that the cause of grievance had arisen to the petitioner-respondent from the date of such knowledge even then the petition is time barred. Under subsection (1) of section 25-A of the I. R. O. petitioner was required to send a grievance notice to the appellant within 3 months of the day on which the cause of grievance had arisen. The grievance notice was admittedly sent to the appellant on 19th January 1974 i.e. after the prescribed period and it was rightly ignored. A Alongwith the petition for re-instatement no application for condonation of dely was filed, therefore, there was no justification for condoning the delay. For the foregoing reason I accept this appeal, set aside the order of the Junior Labour Court and dismiss the petition for re-instatement.