1981 PLP 967 (PLC(CS))

Appeal No. KAR‑977 of 1980, heard on 3rd February, 1981. ‑‑ S. 25‑A‑‑Grievance petition‑Limitation ‑ Grievance against non‑payment of special pay‑Petition filed after more than 2 years from date of stoppage of payment‑‑A reminder to employer claim ed to be treated As grievance notice even if so deemed also not helping because grievance petition filed after expiry of 2 and a half months from date of such reminder‑Grievance petition, in cir cumstances, held, rightly dismissed by Labour Court as time- barred. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi for Appellant. Date of hearing: 3rd February; 1981. The appellant, who was taken up in the service of the respondent corporation, vide letter, dated 11th May, 1966, as Junior Accounts Clerk, was allowed a special pay of Rs. 50 P. M: vide Memo., dated 2nd May, 1978, when he was designated as Senior Accounts Clerk‑cum‑Machine Operator. He was, thereafter, by the Memo., dated 24th August, 1978, promoted to the post of Audit Assistant and posted in Audit Division. However, on promotion he was not granted the special pay and his grie vance is that by reason of denial of the special pay his total emoluments had been reduced despite his promotion. It is the case of the appellant that he made representations to the authorities for reconsideration of the matter and grant to him of special pay, but his request was finally turned down by the respondent Corporation, vide its Memo., dated 18th June, 1980. The appellant, accordingly, brought his grievance petition before the learned Labour Court which has dismissed the same on the ground that the grievance petition is barred by limitation.

2. The learned Labour Court has based its decision on the fact that the grievance of the appellant arose on 24th August 1978, when he was promoted to the rank of Audit Assistant, in which post he was not allow ed the special pay of Rs. 50 which had been granted to the appellant, when be was holding the combined post of Senior Accounts Clerk‑cum -Machine Operator. Since the grievance petition was filed by the appellant on 11th August, 1980, the learned Labour Court took the view that it was hopelessly time barred. The learned Labour Court also examined the contention of the appellant that since the latter's representations were pending consideration with the respondent corporation, therefore till the final rejection of his claim, the appellant's cause of action should be considered to have been kept alive. The learned Labour Court took the view that even if this period be excluded, as claimed by the appellant, then also the appellant's grievance petition was time‑barred as firstly, by the Memo., dated 22nd March, 1980 a specific order was issued by the respon dent‑Corporation that no request for merger of allowances would be allowed in future, and that secondly, if the reminder letter, dated 21st May, 1980, from the appellant to the General Manager of P. I. D. C. is to be considered as a grievance notice, the grievance petition should have been filed within two and a half months of the said reminder letter but it was filed beyond this period and is consequently barred by limitation.

3. It is an admitted position that with effect from 24th August, 1378, the appellant was not being allowed the special pay which he had been drawing while holding the combined post of Senior Accounts Clerk‑cum -Machine Operator. As such, his grievance arose on the said date. Even if the appellant had been making representations against the withholding of his special allowance, the said representations would not extend the period within which the grievance petition was to be filed for they could at best be considered as grievance notices, in the same manner as the appellant now wants his reminder letter, dated 21st May, 1980, to be considered as a grievance notice. If on the other hand, the representations made by the appellant to the authorities are not be considered as grievance notices, then the reminder letter, dated 21st May, 1980, also should not be con sidered as a grievance notice and in that case there would be one grievance notice and the necessary pre‑condition for filing of the grievance petition would not have been fulfilled. There is also another reason for not con sidering the reminder letter, dated 21st May, 1980, as a grievance notice