1981 PLP 394 (PLC)

Ali Amjad for Respondents. Date of hearing : 17th March, 1981. This petition is directed against the decision, dated 5th June, 1980 given by the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, whereby he set aside the order of dismissal of the respondent No. 1 from service and remanded the case to the Second Sind Labour Court, only for determination of the claim of the said respondent for back benefits during the period he was kept out of service by the petitioners. The relevant facts are that respondent No. 1 was employed as Machineman in the Sind Government Press. He was charge‑sheeted on 9th September, 1975 in respect of certain acts of misconduct and after being found guilty in the enquiry was dismissed from service with effect from 20th December, 1975. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 appealed to his Departmental superiors and ultimately submitted an application to the then Chief Minister of Sind who, on 17th November, 1976 ordered his re‑instatement in service by making such endorsement on the application. However, the petitioner Department took the view that the endorsement and the signature of the Chief Minister were forged and referred the matter to the Crimes Branch for enquiry. The Crimes Branch held the enquiry and after the Chief Minister in question had confirmed on 1st August, 1977 that the order of re‑instatement endorsed on the application was passed and signed by him, the respondent No. I was exonerated of the allegation of forgery and enquiry was dropped. As, however, the respondent No. 1 was not re‑instated in spite of being exonerated as stated above, he served a grievance notice dated 12th September, 1977 on the petitioner Department and failing to get any response thereto, filed grievance application under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance before the Labour Court' on 17th November, 1977 claiming re‑instatement in service with back benefits. The application was contested by the Department. The Labour Court by its order dated 15th March, 1980 dismissed the application, holding that the service of the respondent No. 1 having been terminated with effect from 29th December, 1975 the grievance notice served on the petitioner Department on 12th September, 1977 as well as the grievance petition filed before the Labour Court on 17th November, 1977 were barred by time. Aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court, the respondent No. I filed appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal, who disagreed with the Labour Court and held that both grievance notice as well as the grievance application were filed within time and allowed the appeal, The relevant finding of the Appellate Tribunal may be usefully reproduced as under :‑ "Now, although undoubtedly the appellant was aggrieved by the orders of his dismissal, dated 20th December, 1975 and originally the cause of action arose on that date, he was further aggrieved when the Department failed to comply with the orders of the Chief Minister, dated 17th November, 1976. This date, however, cannot be considered to be final and the last in the series of the causes of action so far as the appellant is concerned since the Department took the view that the signature and the endorsement of the Chief Minister were forged. As already stated, an enquiry was thereafter held and it was not till Ist August. 1977 when the Chief Minister, who by then had ceased to hold the office, confirmed his signature and endorsement on the application, that the enquiry was dropped and the charge of having committed forgery against the appellant was considered to be unfounded. As such, I am of the view that afresh cause of action arose to the appellant on the confirmation by the Chief Minister of his endorsement and signature on the appellant's application and it having been established that the endorsement was genuine. As such the grievance petition was well within time so also the grievance notice." Being dissatisfied with the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal, the petitioners have now filed this petition. Mr. Abdul Sattar Shaikh, learned Additional Advocate‑General contended that, at best, cause of action accrued to the respondent No. 1 on 17th November, 1976 when the then Chief Minister had ordered his re‑instatement, but as both the notice as well as the petition were not filed within the prescribed period reckoned from this date even, the same were barred by time and were thus not maintainable. We see no merit in the contention. It is not disputed that after the said order of re‑instatement was passed by the Chief Minister on 17th November, 1976 the petitioners did not communicate any refusal of re‑instatement to the respondent No. 1, but raised an objection by making an allegation that the order of re‑instatement and the signature of the Chief Minister thereon were both forged and themselves referred the matter to the Crimes Branch for enquiry, implying thereby that they would re‑instate the petitioner only after it was verified that the endorsement of re‑instatement was found to have been genuinely made and signed by the Chief Minister. It is also not disputed that the said s enquiry was held and after the concerned Chief Minister had confirmed in the enquiry on 1st August 1977 that the order of re‑instatement was made and signed by him that the respondent was exonerated, and the enquiry was dropped. That being so, indeed, fresh cause of action accrued to the respondent from the said date, viz. 1st August, 1977 ; and inasmuch as the grievance notice as well as the petition were both filed by the respondent within the stipulated period from this date, they were not barred by limitation and were maintainable, as rightly held by the learned labour Appellate Tribunal. No other contention was raised. For the aforesaid reasons, we see no merit in this petition and dismiss it, without cost as the learned counsel for the respondent did not press for the same. Petition dismissed.