1999 PLP 445 (PLC)

These are two appeals, arising out of two decisions, dated 2‑9‑1998 on grievance application(s) filed by the appellants on 1‑9‑1996 claiming up-gradation to Grade‑16 and

17. The said application(s) were dismissed only on the point that the statutory notice, as required under section 25‑A(1), of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, was time‑barred. Both these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. I have gone through the decision of the learned Labour Court and the relevant record. It appears that the applicant filed a representation, dated 21‑4‑1996 before the K.D.A. through its Director‑General, captioned as flagrant violation of Court order of Grievance Petitions Nos.244 of 1992 and 245 of 1992. Notice under section 25‑A(8) of I.R.O., 1969. In reply whereof, an Office Memorandum, dated 7‑7‑1996 was issued by the respondent's Administrative Officer stating, inter alia, that the appellant's case has been considered by the Secretariat and after due consideration, it is found that the request of the appellant(s) is not tenable and, as such, their request cannot be accorded as the appellants are in B‑14 and the post of Photo-gramatic Assistant is not at par with the Stenographers. Assistants, Senior Planning Assistants and Audit Account Assistants". On receipt of the said office memorandum, dated 7‑7‑1996, the appellants) served a grievance notice, dated 18‑7‑1996, under section 25‑A, of I.R.O., 1969. Last paragraph of the said notice reads as under:‑‑-- "I, therefore, request your good-self to be gracious to grant relief to Photo-gramatic Assistants, who are only two in number within 15 days from date hereof, failing which I shall be constrained to seek remedy from the Court of law at your entire risk as to the cost and consequences."

3. It appears that the learned Labour Court did not take into) consideration the grievance notice, dated 18‑7‑1996, which is an important piece of evidence.

4. Mr. Muhammad Qasim Ali, the learned counsel for the K D A and Mr. Ehsan Elahi, the Representative for the appellant made a statement before me that the point of limitation has been wrongly decided and it is not, therefore, objected if the matter is remanded and decided on merits by the court below. Their statement in writing to that effect is placed on tile.

5. In view of the above statement, the impugned decision, dated 2‑9‑1998 is set aside and the case is remanded to be decided afresh.

6. It may, however, be pointed out that in another Appeal No.KAR‑332 of 1998, pending before this Tribunal, a specific plea has beer, taken that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any matter relating to the employees of K.D.A., in view of the Sindh Service Tribunals Amendment) Act, 1994, published on 16‑1‑1995, in the Sindh Government Gazette.

7. The learned Labour Court will also record evidence and hear arguments on that point of jurisdiction first and, then, if necessary, decide the matter on merits.

8. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. Announced in open Court this the 22nd day of February, 1999. H.B.T./279/K/Lab. (Trib.) Order accordingly.