1993 PLP 928 (PLC)

‑‑‑‑R. 13‑‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑ Grievance notice‑‑‑Prerequisite for such notice is existence of grievance‑‑ Where no grievance existed, notice was not honoured‑‑‑No right to grievance petition, held, created‑‑‑Municipal employees seeking direction for preparation and maintaining seniority list‑‑‑Rules providing mode of determination of seniority but not stating that a seniority list has to be maintained‑‑‑Petition in circumstances, held, was rightly dismissed by Labour Court. Sadiq Ali Hashmi, Representative for Appellants. Date of hearing: 12th January, 1986. The six appeals captioned above arise from the decision dated 20‑11‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petitions of the appellants for direction to the respondent to prepare and maintain seniority list were dismissed. Since common question is involved in all the six appeals mentioned above and they arise from the same orders, all of them are being disposed of together through this single judgment. The appellants are the employees of the respondent and according to them, their grievance is that no seniority list is being maintained by the respondent. They were transferred to Housing and Physical Planning Department and were sent back after some time to the respondent. The direction sought for is that the period of service spent by the appellants under the respondent prior to their transfer to Housing and Physical Planning Department should be included in their service and seniority list should be maintained. The ground on which the learned lower Court dismissed the grievance petitions is that no law, settlement or award was cited whereby the right claimed may have been guaranteed to the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants has made reference to Rule 13(b) of the Municipal Committees (Service) Rules, 1969. The said rule deals with the mode of determination of seniority but does not say that a seniority list is to be maintained. This is not the case of the appellants that seniority has been determined wrongly or that they had applied to the respondent to determine their seniority or to include the period of their service previous to their transfer to Housing and Physical Planning Department and back to the respondent and that the respondent refused. If and when any person junior to the appellants is regarded senior to them, they are at liberty to challenge the said order but so far no orders prejudicial to the interest of the appellants have been passed by the respondent, therefore, they had no cause to knock the door of the Court. Learned counsel says that since the grievance notices served by the appellants were not honoured so the appellants had .a grievance and they rightly applied under section 25‑A. On the face of it the argument is fallacious. Grievance notice is to be served after a grievance has been caused to the employee by any act or order of the employer existence of grievance is prerequisite to the service of grievance notice. Since no order has been brought on the record which may have caused grievance to the appellants, their petitions did not lie. They should first ask the respondent to count their previous service and determine their seniority vis‑a‑vis other employees of the same category who were not transferred to Housing and Physical Planning Department and back to the respondent and if the respondent refuses or determines their seniority prejudicial to their interest, only then they can have any grievance. The grievance petitions thus were rightly disallowed.

2. As a result, the appeals having no force are dismissed in limine. A.E./20/Lb.P Appeals dismissed.