1988 PLP 41 (PLC)

9. Firstly what is the legal position of the limitation in the cases of the notice of grievance. Section 25‑A provides that if worker wishes to bring grievance he can do so within three months frog: the day on which the grievance arises. Subsection (2) follows that the employer will communicate decision within 15 days, Subsection 4 provides that if an employer fails to communicate decision within the period prescribed, may take the matter to the Labour Court provided the worker who desires to take the matter to the Labour Court shall do so within the period of two months from the date of the communication.

10. In other words, as the court understands from this legal proviso and the language used, all the legal formalities are to be completed within three months from the date of the cause of action. There is also decision of my Lord the honourable Judges of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Ehsan Ali v. District Judge (P L D 1969 Supreme Court page 167). This was the reference of the Displaced Act and section 19 and Limitation Act. His Lordship held that waiver by the court of the question of limitation is not permissible even where period of limitation is prescribed by Special or Local law.

11. Mr. Mahboob Rizvi has referred to the judicial precedents and taken through the correspondence and contended that the notice of grievance should be the notice from the starting point of limitation dated 30‑12‑1984.

12. Before the court refers to the legal aspects, the court also refers relevant extracts of the evidence of Mr. Masood Ahmed, what he has said in the context of this limitation.

13. The witness gives the evidence as follows: "It is correct that there are prescribed medical regulations in the respondent's company. I have not seen these regulations Exbt: A/1. There is Medical Officer and Chief Medical Officer in the company. Medicines are prescribed by the company's doctor. If the employee in the service of company and the medicines are prescribed by any other doctor, there cannot be re‑imbursement. I was dismissed employee at the relevant time. I could not get the treatment from the approved hospital. I was dismissed in the year 1981. 1 was again dismissed in March 1983. In 1982 I was reinstated subject to fresh enquiry and dismissed again on 7‑3‑1983 and reinstated on 30‑12‑

84. I submitted only applications claiming reimbursement of Rs. 37,

000. I did not submit the relevant bills. It is correct that company directed me dated 13‑4‑85 to submit the bills. I asked the company dated 16‑4‑1985 to supply the copy of medical regulation. I submitted medical bills on 27‑4‑1985. It is not correct that bill from serial No.1 to 19 were not ‑submitted from outside doctors. It is correct that on 26‑6‑1985 I was directed by the company to submit the details. I did not submit the details but told them that company's doctor should check. It is correct that I did not submit the prescription of the outside doctor to the Medical Officer of the company till today. It is not correct that I have submitted bogus bills."

14. The court has also seen the evidence of Mr. Muhammad Aslam. His evidence is as follows: "It is correct that company provides the medical facilities to the children of the employees. It is correct that those who are on duty they get the medical facilities from the doctors of the company. It is correct that prescriptions are provided by doctors who are in the panel and produced before the Chief Medical Officer."

15. The witness further explains: "That if the employee is dismissed by the company we write to the panel of doctors to stop issuing prescription. He accepts the letters dated 3‑4‑1985, 24‑4‑1985,26‑6‑1985 and 27‑4‑1985." The witness again says: "It is correct that the management asked the employee to furnish the details of the X‑Ray etc. but he made clear that these particulars be obtained from the Chief Medical Officer. It is at this stage the witness clarifies this answer that only Chief Medical Officer was in position to obtain such particulars. We did not write to the Chief Medical Officer to ask for the particulars. We get the reply on 6th July, 1986. It is not correct that he was office‑bearer upto 1980 but upto 1979 he was Joint Secretary of CBA. It is correct that Labour Court No.2 granted full back benefits on 12‑11‑1984."

16. With this background of the evidence, the admissions the correspondence, the date of the closing of the correspondence by the management dated 6th July, 1986 and the dates of the dismissals and the reinstatement, the question now arises firstly when the starting point of limitation arose as the cause of action for the purpose of grievance. There is no doubt about it that correspondence has become so detailed that all the time Mr. Masood Ahmed was being informed to ensure compliance of the querries, but at the same time the management was putting him on the caution of the due date to end the correspondence. What this Court has gathered the state of the mind, the intention from the letter writing, although the management did not disclose about his limitation. At the same time the ignorance of law, as it is said is no defence, for, the employee was to be conversant with the medical Regulations of the company where he was working.

17. The Annexure B‑1 was in the nature of information to Mr. Masood Ahmed that he should refer the factory medical rules. This letter is dated 13th April, 1985. Immediately after this, Mr. Masood Ahmed desired for the copy for his assistance. After this application dated 16‑4‑1985, the letter of April, 22, 1985 did not mention about the copy but drawn the attention of Mr. Masood Ahmed that he is free to see the rules on any working day, and also at the same time asked him to submit the bills by latest 27‑4‑1985. Mr. Masood sent the bills and the last letter was 6th July, 1986 that he has not complied with the requirements what the management had asked for, the X‑Ray and the Investigation Reports.

18. Viewing the matter in that context, the letter of the management dated 22nd April, 1985 was important. Mr. Masood Ahmed, if was given the time to see the medical rules, he could not have waited but entertained the grievance before the Court as the starting point of limitation. The reason being that his claim was not in conformity with Regulations 19, 20 and

21. If the Medical Regulation provided that how the procedure is to be followed, he should have anticipated the decision of the management and straightaway would have come to the Court for such interpretation of the rules. If the management entered into correspondence with him of which he was unaware that he had no knowledge that limitation will operate against him from the date 30‑12‑1984 or from the date of 22‑4‑1985, the Court at the most can take this view that the management officials would have been fair enough to tell him that he has no claim. By taking him in the A correspondence, the limitation provided in the IRO, the valuable right has accrued to the respondent by the lapse of time. In this context the Court has referred the decision of my Lord the honourable Judges of the Supreme Court (1974 Supreme Court Monthly Review). I respectfully quote the observations: "Ignorance of law cannot be an excuse sufficient to defeat another person's right."

18. In earlier paragraph, his Lordship have also held: "A valuable right accrues to the other side by the lapse of time and he cannot be lightly deprived of this right merely on the ground that the other side has unnecessarily wasted time on frivolous and wholly misconceived petition."

19. Even in this case cited, the delay was not condoned.

20. If this Court even if take the argument that the claim of Mr. Masood Ahmed is going waste, when the management unnecessarily dragged him in the correspondence, under all the notions of fairness either to refuse or to accept, the Court has laboured hard, again to go through the evidence, the Court refers his own admission where he has said frankly that he did not submit the prescription of the outside doctor to the Medical Officer of the company till today. When the Court refers the regulation of the company which regulates the relationship between the employer and the employee, this document if not disowned by the CBA, it remains binding as the rules of the company for the working of the factory under the law, and therefore binds the employee. Article 20 is very clear that the prescription from the private and medical practitioner will not be entertained and also in emergency Article 21 provides very limited scope and provides that if the factory hours are closed and the employee gets medical treatment for three or four dozes, he will submit the bills with the prescriptions on the following day. Mr. Masood has not satisfied the Court in any way, but has based his case rather on sentiments. His claim may be genuine but by his own conduct if he has not followed the rules and regulations, he has wasted the claim. Further the Court is also of the opinion that if he has claimed that he was entitled to the back benefits from the date of dismissal and according to his interpretation this claim also includes the back benefits, firstly he should have taken up this question before the honourable second Sind Labour Court where the question of limitation would have been raised, and secondly if the question of the medical claim has come before this Court for the adjudication to include that benefit which he otherwise would have been entitled as back benefit this Court is of the opinion that the claim of that benefit to be included is to be supported by the law if the law allows, the employer was bound to include in that back benefit. The proper course was to have raised this question before the honourable Court.

21. In the result the applicant has no case on the point of law regarding limitation. But also the Court will point out that if the management officials, took the compassionate view of his claim, and followed contrary to the set of rules itself and took the softer view of his correspondence, in other words they were trying to get subjective satisfaction of his claim, they can still maintain the equity, what is reasonable and just, but it will be purely the exercise of their own discretion, if they embarked on this course of correspondence instead of giving him rejected answer.

22. The Court also further examined the point of view taken by Ch. Masood Ahmed to convince the Court that there is a difference of the entitlement and the details of the claim. In other words, Mr. Masood Ahmed has argued on these lines that the entitlement was not disputed for the management itself accepted the claim and required the details from Mr. Masood Ahmed. To this extent, the Court agrees with Mr. Masood Ahmed that if in the correspondence his claim was impliedly accepted as real claim taking the sympathetic view evidently from the language of the correspondence, the Court still points out that if the legal aspect has been placed before the Court of the limitation, irrespective what the equity intervenes, the application is time‑barred. The Court has examined the contention of the applicant from all angles. The question came for consideration before the Court what should be the effect of the back benefits if the dismissal was found illegal. Should the position revert from that date when the employee remains to be benefited by all the benefits including the medical allowance which is his right and for his children to go through the treatment. But 'if the rules of the company exist and on those rules the entire industry works to the relationship of the employer and employee, that document becomes the document carrying the legal obligation. The employee therefore is presumed to go through those regulations under which he becomes entitled. If the rules are in the nature of prohibition that no treatment will be taken from the private clinic unless in the manner prescribed as in the case of emergency, the employer will give him the benefit which will be lawful benefit. The back benefits therefore if not defined with precision what shall be the back benefits, such application should have been made before the honourable second Labour Court in respect of the interpretation because that benefit also was granted by that Court. Presently as the facts stand the application is barred by limitation. Notwithstanding that it will be purely a discretion of the management officials who if otherwise have made the commitment to consider his claim, in equity. For the purpose of the application, the Court has discussed this aspect that application is barred by limitation purely on point of law in the context of the medical regulations. Application is dismissed. A.E./995/Lb.S