1986 PLP 409 (PLC)

Wahid Bux for Appellants. Masood Shaikh for Respondents. DECISION These two appeals are heard together and I propose to decide them by this single order.

2. The learned Labour Court dismissed the grievance petitions of the appellants on 14‑5‑1985, on the grounds that they were time‑barred.

3. The facts in nutshell are that the appellants were the employees of the respondents and were covered by the provision of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. They were said to be the members of Modern Textile Mills Workers Union which was a Collective Bargaining Agent. In the grievance petitions it was alleged that both the appellants besides others, were actively participating in union activities, so the management was unhappy. In order to curb the union activities and to get rid of its office‑bearers, it is alleged that the management removed number of office‑bearers and other active members, and in the same end, the appellants were also charge‑sheeted. Appellant Tasawar Ali was charge‑sheeted on 14‑12‑1982 and 4‑5‑1983, whereas the appellant, Zaheer Ahmad was charge‑sheeted on 23‑11‑1982. Both these appellants were also not permitted to perform their duties and both were unlawfully kept away from the mill. Both appellants had submitted their replies to the charge‑sheets and Enquiry Officer was also appointed but the appellants were not permitted to take part in the proceedings. Finally, after holding ex parte enquiries both the appellants were dismissed from service by an order, dated 26‑5‑1983. The appellants then, as per their petitions, sent grievance notices on 24‑8‑1983 and finally they instituted their grievance petitions on 6‑11‑1983, under section 25‑A, I. R. O. , 1969. The stand of the respondents is that the petitions are not maintainable because the grievance procedure was not adopted and that the grievance petitions are highly belated. On merits the allegations of harassment of the union members or office‑bearers etc. were explicitly denied pleading at the same time that in fact the union ceased to exist. The appellants chose to remain absent in the enquiries though they were repeatedly issued notices etc., on their addresses.

4. Both the parties were heard in these appeals. The point of limitation was raised by the learned counsel of the parties. According to the appellants, they sent the grievance notices for the first time on 24‑8‑1983 under Certificate of Posting and which certificate is also placed on record as Annexure 'A‑3'. The same assertions have been repeated in paragraph 6 of their respective affidavits. However, the appellants had also filed some documents alongwith their application on 17‑9‑1984. According to this list, grievance notices were also said to have been sent by the appellants on 4‑6‑1983 by registered A/D and the same were also returned with an endorsement of refusal on 11‑6‑1983. This point was noted by the learned Labour Court and he doubted that the date 24‑8‑1983, was manipulated to bring the grievance petitions in time but the findings of the learned Labour Court is that for the first time, the grievance notices were sent on 4‑6‑1983, therefore, the grievance petitions could not be within time. The position was not appropriately explained nor in the appeals, the learned representative of the appellants could explain this position. Hence, there is a suppression of facts and vital importance which go deep into the merits of the case. Therefore, clearly the grievance petitions were time‑barred and a futile attempt was made to manipulate the date of grievance notices to be 24‑8‑1983, I agree with the order of the learned Labour Court and hereby dismiss both these two appeals. A. E.??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeals dismissed.