2003 PLP 102 (PLC)

The Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner on various grounds. Firstly, on the ground that the grievance notice and the grievance petition filed under section 25‑A was hopelessly time‑barred. The second ground was that the grievance notice submitted by the petitioner was not signed by him, which was a mandatory requirement of law, whereby the said grievance notice could not be considered to be a valid and proper grievance notice. Which was a condition necessary for invoking the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. The third ground was that the petitioner was retired from service vide order, dated 15‑5‑1996. We have heard the arguments of Mr. A. Nafees Osman, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani, Advocate on behalf of respondent No.2 and have also perused the material on record. Mr. A. Nafees Osmani vehemently attacked the decision of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal on the ground that it was based on improper appreciation of the facts and law and could not be sustained. However, Mr. Nafees Osmani failed to satisfy us as to what illegality or irregularity was committed by the learned Chairman in allowing the appeal of respondent No.2, set aside the order of the Sindh Labour Court No.V, Karachi and upholding the retirement/dismissal of " the petitioner. It has already been stated that on behalf of the respondent No.2 three main grounds were raised. Firstly, with regard to‑the limitation in serving the grievance notice; secondly, non‑signing of the grievance notice by the petitioner; and thirdly, that the petitioner had himself asked for retirement. The learned Chairman of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal had exhaustively discussed all the aforesaid grounds and had decided the same against the petitioner. If will be appropriate to reproduce the relevant portions from the decision of the learned Chairman. The portion dealing with the question of limitation is reproduced as under:‑‑ "In his grievance petition he has, clearly mentioned that he got injury in the hotel due to fall of water tank, on his back on 30‑6‑1992 whereupon he got the treatment in the hospital and availed some leave but when he reported for duty on or about 12‑11‑1992 he was not allowed to resume duty. As such it was clear that cause of action accrued to him when he was not allowed to resume duty i.e. on 12‑11‑1992. But this grievance notice and grievance petition admittedly filed in 1996 were obviously hopelessly time‑barred. It could not be believed that though respondent was fit enough to resume duty and he actually reported for duty on 12‑11‑1992 yet he was not allowed to resume. There was no indication on the record that when he reported for duty he produced any Medical Certificate of his fitness. It was also unbelievable that he continued to report for duty everyday until he was served with show‑cause notice. No doubt it has also remanded unexplained why the Hotel Management did not take prompt action against the respondent for his unauthorised long absence but that could not be the reason for condoning the default on the part of the respondent. He should have shown his vigilance in getting his grievance redressed instead of throwing the balance on the Hotel Management for taking the alleged action." The portion detailing with the issue of non‑signing of the grievance notice is reproduced as under:‑‑ "In this connection my attention was drawn to the grievance notice which is a condition precedent to the filing of the grievance petition. It is at Annexure‑B in the lower Court's record. It was obviously unsigned by the respondent. In the Lahore's case reported as 1984 PLC 842 grievance notice not bearing the signature of aggrieved workman was held not to be a legal notice. That being the position the grievance petition was not maintainable. " The portion dealing with retirement of the petitioner is reproduced as under:‑‑ "Moreover, his retirement was ordered as is clear from the letter of retirement (Annexure‑B/2 page 69 of the lower Court's record on the respondents' own request vide Annexure B/1 page 67 of lower Court's record). However, his learned counsel Mr. Nafees Osmani had submitted in course of arguments that his offer to be retired was conditional inasmuch as that the should first be reinstated and assigned light duty. I am sorry I could not persuade myself to agree with the view‑point. First of all there could be no conditional offer for retirement. If at all the offer of retirement be considered as conditional, it would be earlier from the respondent's own letter referred to above that he wanted to be retired if it is not possible to put him on light duty. The perusal of his letter of request leave no doubt that he had given two alternatives to the Hotel Management. First that he should be given light duty and two, if the first alternative was not possible, then he should be retired. Therefore. I am convinced that his retirement was made on his own request. This also finds support from the order of the Mohtasib wherein among other things he had recommended that due to his physical injury the Hotel Management showed willingness to give him retirement if he made such a request. " Mr. Nafees Osmani had not been able to refer to any evidence or document on the basis of which it could be held that the aforesaid observations of the learned Chairman were not proper or where contrary to the record. As such, they do not require any interference. With regard to the contention that the petitioner was not paid his dues in accordance with law after being retired. It is to be noted that this question was also raised before the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and it was observed that the respondent had offered three months' salary instead of one month's salary in lieu of notice, which was not accepted by the petitioner. Relating to the question that he was not paid gratuity in accordance with the provision of clause (6) of Standing Order 12 of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, the learned Chairman observed that respondent No.2 had established provident fund scheme for their employees/workmen to which the petitioner was a subscriber and respondent No.2 was also making contribution in the same amount as was contributed by the petitioner as such the petitioner was not entitled to any gratuity as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Akhtar Munir and 4 others v. District Manager, Sindh Road Transport Corporation at Sanghar and others, reported in 1996 PLC 306; and Buxly Paints Ltd. v. Izharullah and others reported in 1984 PLC

33. Upon the above discussion we had found that this Constitutional petition was absolutely misconceived, without any substance and did not merit ad consideration. By a short order, dated 27‑9‑2001 we had dismissed the same in limine alongwith the miscellaneous application pending therein for reasons to be recorded later. These are the reasons for the said short order. H.B.T./M‑419./K Petition dismissed.