1982 PLP 656 (PLC(CS))

‑‑ S. 25‑A‑Grievance petition‑Limitation‑Impugned termination order sought to be delivered at personal level but workman refusing to acknowledge its receipt on office copy and refusing to receive it after reading and malting a grievance notice‑Termination letter subsequently sent by post Workman sending another grievance notice after receipt of termination letter through post Reply to first and second grievance notices sent after intervals Termination actually becoming effective immediately from date of termination letter‑Limitation for grievance petition, in circum stances, held, rightly counted by Labour Court from date of reply to first grievance notice. Saleem Raza for Appellant. Date of hearing: 18th March, 1982. This appeal is directed against the decision of the learned IVth Labour Court, given on 20th January 1982 dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant workman, Mehrban Khan, challenging his termina tion from the services of the respondent‑Company with effect from 3rd June, 1981. The learned Labour Court, by its decision, repelled the contention of the appellant workman that the order terminating his services was issued by a person not competent to do so. The learned Labour Court has dismissed the appellant's grievance petition on the ground that the grievance petition was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed in section 25‑A,

1. R. O. Aggrieved by this decision the appellant has come up in appeal to this Tribunal.

2. I have heard Mr. Saleem Raza, the learned Representative for the appellant. He has sought to argue that the grievance notice was served upon the respondents within 3 months. He has not disputed the fact that on 8th June, 1981 the appellant had served a grievance notice on the respondents. In fact a copy of that notice was filed by the appellant with his grievance petition. Reply to this grievance notice was given by the respondents by its letter dated 16th June, 1981. The grievance petition should, therefore, have been filed by the appellant by the 16th August 1981. Instead, the grievance petition was filed on 24th August 1981 much beyond the period of limitation. The appellant dishonestly tried to con ceal the fact of the reply of the respondents, dated 16th June, 1981 to his grievance notice of 8th June, 1981 by filing the letter, dated 16th July, 1981 which in fact was not a reply to the grievance notice, dated 8th June, 1981 but a reply to the appellant's letter, dated god July, 1981. Mr. Saleem Raza sought to argue that the appellant had in fact 2 grievances and in respect of each of them he had sent a separate grievance notice: According to him the appellant's first grievance was when his services were orally terminated on 3rd June, 1981 and in respect of the said grievance he had served upon the respondents grievance notice, dated 8th June, 1981. The second grievance of the appellant, according to Mr. Saleem Raza, arose when he received the letter, dated 11th June, 1981 enclosing the letter of his dismissal from service, dated 3rd June, 1981. 1 have carefully considered the contention of Mr. Saleem Raza, but find that the 2 grievances are identical and hence no question arises of the appellant having a right to submit a separate grievance' notice in respect of each one of them. The evidence of Aurangzeb Khan, the Pay Roll Officer of the respondent Company is to the effect that on .3rd June, 1981 Mr. Nizamuddin Khatak, the Personnel Executive of the respon dent‑Company had given him the letter of termination of appointment of the appellant with instructions to deliver the same to him. He has further testified that on the same day he attempted to deliver the said letter to the appellant who after reading the same refused to sign the duplicate copy of the letter and went away. The contention of the appellant that he worked in the respondent‑Company up to 7th June, 1981 is belied by the respondent's Time‑Keeper, Muhammad Akhtar, who stated that the appellant punched his card up to 2nd June, 1981 and there after did not punch his card as his services were terminated with effect from 3rd June, 1981. The self‑punching card of the appellant has been produced by the witness, which indicates that the card was punched till 2nd June, 1981. Thereafter, there is an endorsement on the card that the services of the appellant had been terminated with effect from 3rd June 1981. Furthermore not only the letter terminating the services of the appellant, dated 3rd June 1981 but a payment voucher of the said date letter has also been produced, indicating that the accounts of the appel lant were settled on that date. This evidence clearly establishes the fact that not only the services of the appellant had been terminated with effect from 3rd June 1981 and the appellant was handed over the letter terminating his Services but he refused to take the delivery of the same and sign the duplicate copy thereof and hence it had to be sent to him by post. Mr. Saleem Raza attempted to argue that if the appellant had refused to take delivery of the letter, dated 3rd June, 1981 it should have been sent to him by post on the same day, but since it was sent to him almost 8 days later, it should be assumed that in fact the termination orders in respect of the appellant were issued much later as contended by the appellant. I find no force in this contention. As already indi cated the orders terminating the services of appellant were attempted to be delivered to the appellant by an officer of the respondent‑Company but the appellant refused to sign duplicate copy of this order, after reading the order. There was no legal compulsion upon the respondent to send the copy of that order to the appellant by post. The mere fact that some delay occurred in sending the copy of the letter to the appel lant by registered post does not give rise to the presumption that the letter terminating the services of the appellant was issued subsequently. I am, therefore, of the view that the learned Labour Court has rightly held that the grievance petition was filed beyond the period of 2 month from the receipt by the appellant of the reply to his grievance notice.

3. Mr. Saleem Raza did not attempt to argue that the order termi nating the services of the appellant had been issued by an incompetent authority. Suffice it to say that this order was issued by Mr. Nizamuddin Khatak, the Personnel executive of the respondent-company, who had not only issued the original appointment order of the appellant but had also issued the subsequent orders extending the period of appointment of the appellant. Furthermore, Mr. Nizamuddin Khatak has been dele gated powers by the Fact‑Manager of the respondent‑Company to fire the workmen.

4. For the reasons discussed by me above, I find no merit in this appeal and accordingly dismiss the same in limine. Appeal dismissed.