1994 PLP 230 (PLC)

This appeal calls in question the order of the Labour Court No. VI, Hyderabad, in a petition filed under section 25‑A of the I.R.O., 1969, which was allowed, and the petitioner was reinstated in service with full back benefit It arose in the following circumstances:

2. The petitioner was employed in the year 1983 as a Godown Keeper at the Tando Adam Branch of the respondent Bank and his duty was to supervise the goods lying in the premises of Messrs Tanveer Textile Mills, which had been pledged with the respondents. He had been there for a number of years but the appointment letters issued were for a few months at a time with a break of a day or so every time. The last appointment letter was dated 18‑4 1988, for a period for three months ending on 18‑7‑1988. It appears that he came to be arrested in a criminal case concerning the pledged goods on 6‑6 1988 and was released on bail on 7‑9‑1988. He states to have verbally reported to the Manager at Tando Adam after the grant of bail but was asked to see them only after the decision of the case.

3. The case proceeded before the Special Court (Offences in Banks) at Karachi and after the acquittal on 4‑1‑1991 it is alleged that he had reported for duty on 10‑1‑1991; but was refused as he was told that he was no more in their service. He, therefore, sent a grievance notice on 31‑1‑1991 and the petition before the Labour Court followed.

4. The petition was resisted inter alia on the ground that it was barred by time and the petitioner was not a workman. At any rate he was not their employee but engaged on behalf of Messrs Tanveer Textile Mills Ltd., the bailors and also that his appointments were temporary in nature.

5. The petitioner was his own witness and Nisar A. Memon Manager of the Tando Adam Branch of the Bank, appeared on behalf of the respondents.

6. According to the last letter of appointment, his employment was effective upto 18‑7‑1988. So, when the respondent had been released on bail he found somebody else working in his place. He was shown the door and his version is that he was told that he would not be allowed to resume until he had cleared himself of the charge. He did not even mention the name of the Manager who had asked him to go away. The name has been supplied only at a very late stage during the proceedings. He did not care even to send a letter not to talk of a grievance notice and remained satisfied with what he was told. And the proceedings took a number of years to conclude. It is rather surprising that he should have chosen to act with job‑like patience for awaiting the result of tie case, for years together. Under section 25‑A an aggrieved workman (as the respondent was) has to take step for the redressal of his grievances according to the prescribed procedure. He has to bring it to the notice of the employer in writing, either himself or through his shop steward agent, within three months of the day on which the cause of such grievance had occurred. In case the demand is not met the petition is to be filed within again a prescribed period.

7. In this case on the showing of the respondent the cause of action had accrued to him when he had appeared before the Manager and he was not allowed to resume work. On his own showing he knew that duties were being assigned and orders were being issued not by the Manager of Tando Adam Branch but by the Zonal Manager, Nawabshah. He had not even gone there at all. That was not done for years and it cannot be said that the cause of action had accrued after the judgment was given on 4‑1‑1991.

8. I am afraid the learned Presiding Officer did not bestow proper care and consideration which the matter deserved and accepted each and every word let fall by the respondent in justification of the delay as gospel truth

9. In my humble opinion the delay has not been accounted for and they appeal is liable to succeed on that score alone.

10. It is true that the respondent was the employee of the appellant‑Bank and not of the mill though his employment was of a temporary nature (see Appeal Nos.HYD‑238 and 239 of 1990 Ishrat Iqbal Siddiqui and Syed Shakeel Haider Rizvi v. Muslim Commercial Bank Limited Hyderabad, 1992 P L C 93ti decided by my learned predecessor on 31‑1‑1991, however, that will be of no avail as the petition was barred by time.

11. In the result I will set aside the order and allow the appeal. H.B.T./2265/Lb.S. Appeal allowed.