1987 PLP 685 (PLC)

‑‑‑Ss.25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Grievance notice and petition‑‑Limitation‑‑Railway worker suspended and then removed from service‑‑Order of removal converted in departmental appeal into that of punishment of WIP for 3 years‑‑Subsequently vide separate order period of discharge from service treated as leave without pay and that of suspension as SUS (spent under suspension)‑‑Labour Court held that subsequent order was not a substantive order and was consequential to prior order on departmental appeal‑‑View taken by Labour Court, held, was wrong because two separate orders gave separate caused grievance‑‑Grievance notice and petition so far as they related to punishment of WIP were time‑barred but so far as they related to treating discharge and suspension period, held, were not time barred‑‑Order of Labour Court set aside by Appellate Tribunal remanding case to Labour Court for decision whether subsequent order was sustainable. Abdul Chafoor, representative for Appellant. Irfan Qadir for Respondent. Date of hearing: 16th June, 1986. The decision dated 14‑10‑1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7 Gujranwala has been challenged whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.

2. The facts are that on account of the allegation of misconduct the appellant was removed from service vide order dated 22‑9‑1982. The appellant preferred a departmental appeal, which was accepted on 11‑51983. Before the appellant was removed from service he had been kept under suspension from 24‑7‑1982 to 24‑9‑1982, when the order of removal from service was converted into the punishment of WIP for three years. No decision was made with regard to the period of suspension and the period for which the appellant had remained out of service. In August, 1983 the period of suspension was treated as S.U.S. and the period for discharge from service from 25‑9‑1982 to 11‑5‑1983 was treated as leave without pay. The appellant served grievance notice on 22‑8‑1983 and lodged his grievance petition on 6‑10‑1983. The learned lower Court has held that the grievance notice and grievance petition were time‑barred inasmuch as the order of removal from service was passed on 11‑5‑1983. With regard to the order passed in August, 1983 the learned lower Court said that it was not a substantive order but was consequential to the order dated 11‑5‑1983. This is wrong both the orders ,were separate and gavel separate causes of grievance to the appellant. The grievance notice and grievance petition so far as they related to awarding of punishment of WIP were time‑barred inasmuch as the said order was conveyed to he appellant on 14‑5‑1983 whereas the grievance notice was sent on 2‑8‑1985. But so far as the order whereby the period of suspension was treated as S.U.S. and period for which the appellant has remained out of service was treated as leave without pay is concerned the grievance notice is not time‑barred inasmuch as it was sent in the same month in which the order was passed. The learned lower Court, therefore, should have recorded its finding about the correctness or otherwise of the order whereby the period of suspension was treated as S.U.S. and period for which the appellant remained out of service was considered as leave without pay. The appeal, petition therefore, is partly accepted and holding that the petition grievance and grievance notice were within time so far as the order passed in August, 1983 with regard to the suspension period and the period for which the appellant remained out of service was concerned, the case is remanded for decision whether order passed in August, 1983 is sustainable or not. Nemo for the parties. A. E./327/Lb.P.??????????? Appeal partly accepted