11984 PLP 194 (PLC)

M. A. Shaida for Appellant. Ch. linwar Ali for Respondertt. Dated of hearing : 23rd January, 1983. This appeal arises froth the decision dated 20th June, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, whereby the respondent's suspension was declared as illegal and he was directed to be reinstated with back benefits excluding the wages of first 28 days.

2. The respondent was Line Superintendent in Gojra Sub-Division. He is alleged to have been caught red-handed on 15th September, 1975 in a raid, wait arrested and a case was registered against him. He was brought under suspension. On 16th September, 1975 Court No. 3, Lahore at Ferozewala set aside the suspension for the reason that order of extension of suspiansion was not obtained from the competent authority on the expiration of the original order of suspension. On 14th May, 1978 he was charge7sheeted and after preliminary enquiry was again suspended on 8th August, 1979 after getting approval from the Interior Ministry. The respondent challenged the said suspension in Court No. 2, Lahore.

3. It has been argued that Labour Court No. 2, Lahore had n o territorial jurisdiction, inasmuch as the respondent was employed at Gojra when was suspended and there his order of suspension was sent. Suspension order is Exh. P-3, It was issued by the Chief Engineer, Electricity WAPUA, Islamabad, but extension was granted by the Deputy Director, WAPDA, Lahore, vide orders Exh. R-7, dated 29th April, 1980, Exh. R-8, dated 28th January, 1981 and finally by Administrative Officer, Lahore, vide order Exh. R-9, dated 30th March, 1981. It is thus evident that part of cause of action arose at Lahore. So Labour Court No. 2, Lahore had also territorial jurisdiction besides Court No. 6, Rawalpindi.

4. According to Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, an employee can be kept under suspension for the purposes of enquiry only. Enquiry does not take much time, so the law has prescribed total period of suspension as 28 days. As WAPDA is neither working by or under the authority of any Government, nor has statutory rules of service, therefore, the two conditions given in proviso 11 to section I (4) (c) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 do not stand fulfilled and thus WAPDA is not exempted A from the application of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. The order does not provide that if a criminal case is pending,. the employee may be kept under suspension till the decision of the said case. Since the suspension exceeded 28 days, it was rightly set aside by the learned lower court.

5. Learned counsel has argued that the petition was time-barred. The learned lower Court has rightly observed that wrongful suspension is a continuing wrong. If suspension comes to an end and. thereafter it is challenged, of course grievance notice be given within three months of the B termination of suspension and the grievance petition should be brought within two; months and fifteen days of the service of grievance notice. Since in the present case the suspension was challenged in its continuance, the grievance notice and the grievance petition were not time-barred.

6. No other point has been argued.

7. As a result of the observations made above, I do not end any force in the appeal and dismiss it, A. e. Appeal dismissed.