1988 PLP 694 (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑S.25‑A‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Limitation‑‑Petition presented within 2 months and 15 days of service of valid grievance notice, held, Was within time. (d) Industrial Relations Ordinance (0111 of 1969)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss.25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Grievance petition against termination of service‑ Termination found wrongful‑‑Petitioner workman deposing before Labour Court that he remained jobless from date of termination‑‑No evidence in rebuttal,‑Petitioner, in circumstances, wad awarded re‑instatement with full back benefits. S. M. Nazim for Appellant. Ch. Noor Hussain for Respondent. Date of hearing: 17th January, 1988. This is an appeal directed against the decision dated 2s_10_1'38' recorded by learned Presiding Officer. Punjab Labour Court No. 7 Gujranwala whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for hi" re‑instatement in service has been dismissed.

2. The facts are that the appellant was appointed as substitute Boilermaker Muawar in October, 1979 and was posted it, Locoshed Pakistan Railways, Wazirabad. His services were terminated on 29‑12‑1985 on the ground of absence. Admittedly no charge sheet was given nor any enquiry was held. The learned lower Court has dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant on the (round that he being temporary employee appointed on ad hoc for three months, service of show‑cause notice and holding of enquiry were not necessary that since postman Was not examined b1 him, the production of copy of grievance notice and postal receipt were lot sufficient. It has been wrongly said by the learned lower Court that the appellant was appointed on ad hoc basis. He was a substitute (Badli). A substitute employee continues in service till the person in whose absence he was employed resumes duty. The leaned lower Court has not considered the policy letter which is ExhP‑5, It directs that the workers who were appointed on ad hoc basis of as substitutes against permanent posts and had worked for more than the year be absorbed on regular basis. It was also directed that one day breaks if any made after three months would be recouped by grant of leave due. It was, however, further directed that the serviced would be regularised through properly constituted selection committee. Since the appellant was a substitute employee and served for more than one year he was entitled to be absorbed according to P'

5. This is true that he did not appear before the selection committed but the respondent failed to prove that when the selection committee was formed the appellant was directed to appear before it. The mere that he was absent was not sufficient for not considering for regularisation. If he had been asked to appear before the selection committee and he had failed without reasonable ground he would have no case.

3. So far as service of grievance notice is concerned, the postal receipt shows that the notice was despatched from the post office. No witness was examined on behalf of the respondent to state that the grievance notice was not received. The presumption, therefore, is that the notice sent by registered post through receipt Exh.P‑8 was received by the respondent.

4. Since the services of the appellant were not terminated for the reason that his substitute had resumed duty but were terminated on the ground of absence, therefore, service of charge sheet and holding of enquiry were necessary. Long absence amounts to misconduct and in cases where a stigma is laid upon an employee and for that reason he is removed from service it is necessary to give him opportunity to justify the absence. If show‑cause notice had been issued and an enquiry held the appellant may have produced the applications for leave and medical certificate before the learned lower Court, which are P‑1 to P‑

3. Since he actually applied for leave which was supported by a medical certificate it cannot be said that he was guilty of wilful absence. Since he had fallen ill he was not in a position to discharge his duties. This is true that during illness he had not given any intimation to the office but if enquiry had been held he may have given reasons for which he was prevented from doing so. The question of limitation was also raised by the respondent before the learned lower Court which is mentioned in the impugned order but the learned lower Court has not recorded any decision thereon. The grievance notice was despatched on 9‑3‑1986. Even if it be taken that the order of termination was served on 3‑2‑1986 the grievance petition was within time. The petition was presented on 1‑4‑1986. It was within two months and fifteen days ofl the service of grievance notice.

5. So far as back benefits are concerned, the appellant deposed in his statement before the learned lower Court that he was jobless right from the date of his removal from service. No evidence in 1 rebuttal was produced to show that he had remained employed elsewhere.

6. As a result of the observations made above the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision and the order of removal from service, the appellant is directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits. The respondent is directed to consider the case of the appellant for the regularisation of his service according I to the policy letter P‑8, till he is regularised he will remain as substitute. A. E. /497/Lb.P Appeal accepted.