1982 PLP 773 (PLC(CS))

Hassan Hameedi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 3rd March, 1982. This appeal is directed against the decision of the learned VIIth Labour Court, given on 25th August 1981 allowing the grievance petition of the respondent workman only to the extent of imposition of penalty of reduction in rank.

2. The relevant facts, for the purposes of this appeal, shortly stated, are that the respondent was employed in the Agricultural Develop ment Bank of Pakistan, as investigating officer which post was sub sequently designated as Loan Supervisor. While the respondent was posted at the Sadiqabad Branch of the bank, he received an office memorandum, dated 20th October, 1971, alleging certain irregularities acts of misconduct said to have been com ‑pitted by him while he was posted at Sadiqabad branch of the bank. It appears that the respondent submitted a detailed reply, dated 29th September, 1972 to the aforesaid office memorandum. According to the respondent, no further action on the office memorandum, dated 20th October, 1971 was taken by the bank till 1977 when he was informed by the bank that it had been decided to hold a domestic enquiry in respect of his acts of misconduct in August, 1977. It is not disputed that a domestic enquiry was actually held against the respondent but according to him the enquiry was held against all norms of a fair play as neither an opportunity was given to him to defend himself nor he was given an opportunity to lead evidence. The respondent further has made grievance of the fact that he was neither supplied with a copy of this enquiry officer's report nor was served with a second show‑cause notice. Ultimately, by office order, dated 30th September, 1980 issued some 9 years after the allegations of misconduct were first communicated to the respondent, he was downgraded one step lower. in his grade of pay. Aggrieved by this decision, the respondent preferred a grievance petition before the learned Labour Court. During the course of the proceedings before the learned Labour Court but before notice of the grievance petition was issued by the Labour Court to the appellants, the latter, by the show‑cause notice, dated 3rd November, 1980 withdrew the office order, dated 30th September, 1980. However, by the said order, it was made plain that the charges against the respondent not been dropped and that in fact it was the intention of the bank to proceed against him and for this purpose, a copy of the enquiry officer's report was appended to the said show‑cause notice. The appellants resisted the grievance petition of the respondent mainly on the ground that as the impugned order, dated 30th September, 1980 had been withdrawn, the grievance petition of the respondent had become infructuous. This contention, however, was repelled by the learned Labour Court as according to it the show‑cause notice, dated 3rd November 1980, showed a clear intention on the part of the bank to take action upon the old charges against the respondent. It accordingly allowed the grievance petition of the respondent to the extent indicated above.

3. I have heard Mr. Hamid Hussain, the learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Hassan Hameedi, Advocate, who appeared for the respondent workman.

4. Two issues fall to be considered in the instant case. The first is whether the appeal preferred by the appellant is barred by limitation. It appears from the endorsement of the office of the learned Labour Court .on the certified copy of the decision supplied to the appellants decision was announced on 25th August, 1981, but the copy was ready on 29th August, 1981. Application for copy by the appellants was made on the same date, but copy was supplied, for some unaccount able reasons, on 8th September, 1981. The appeal was preferred on 5th October, 1981. If the period from 29th August, 1981 to 8th September, 981 which was spent in obtaining certified copy of the impugned decision excluded, the appeal would be in time. The objections to the maintainability of the appeal on the score' of limitation is, therefore, repelled. The disturbing fact, however, is that the office of the learned labour Court bas taken as many as 11 days to deliver the copy of the decision to the appellants when instructions have been issued by this Tribunal that copies of decisions should be delivered to the parties as far as possible on the very day that the decisions are announced and for this purpose appropriate number of copies of the decisions should be prepared. The learned Presiding Officer should look into the matter and see that such lapses are not repeated by his office in future.

5. It is clear from the show‑cause notice, dated 3rd November, 1980 n'‑the office order, dated 30th September, 1980 by which the penalty of reduction by one step was imposed upon the respondent, has been withdrawn abinitio. As the grievance of the respondent was against the imposition of the said penalty, the grievance ceased to exist as soon as the orders imposing the penalty were withdrawn. Mr. Hassan Hameedi, however, sought to argue that the intention of the appellants was to take action against the respondent and the show‑cause notice, dated 3rd November, 1981 was a clever device for filling up the legal lacunas in the proceedings, which they had taken against the respondent. Even if the contention of the learned counsel be well founded, the grievance petition of the respondent was not maintainable after the withdrawal of the orders dated 30th September, 1980. If, he has any grievance in respect of the fresh proceedings, which the bank is apparently proposing to take against him, he is required to give the bank a fresh grievance notice and thereafter to file a fresh grievance petition. If the bank decides to impose any penalty on the, respondent on the basis of the fresh show‑cause notice, dated 3rd November, 1980, the respondent would have a fresh cause of action and a fresh grievance.

6. For the reasons discussed by me above, I would set aside the impugned decision of the learned Labour Court and would allow the appeal. Appeal allowed.