2001 PLC 214 (PLP)

Abdul Rehman Butt for Respondent No.

1. Ch. Latif Saghar for Respondents Nos.3 and

4. Date of hearing: 25th October, 2000. Aggrieved by the decision, dated 14th December, 1999 of Sindh Labour Court No.IV, Karachi whereby grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed, they have filed this appeal.

2. The case between the parties briefly stated is as follows. The appellants had been working as permanent workers continuously for several years (since 24‑2‑1986) as Tindals/Winch Helpers under the gang system at Port Qasim. In pursuance of the agreement/settlement concluded between the workers, representatives of the respondents and the Authorities on 15th March, 1994, in presence of Joint Director Labour, it was agreed that the status of the workers including appellants would be restored as Tindals/Winch Helpers. However, on 12th September, 1994 Mr. Nasim Gul (respondent No.8). President of the CBA Union gave verbal order to the appellants and other workers not to come on duty as Tindals/Winch Helpers but instead they may come and work as ordinary labourers. No order in writing was issued nor any reason was assigned for such order. Thus, the said settlement remained unimplemented causing prejudice to the appellants who therefore made a number of representations to the respondents including the one made on 18th May, 1995, which was served as grievance notice on the respondents. Its reply was given/communicated to the appellants vide letter, dated 17‑6‑ 1995 which was delivered to them on 28th June 1995. More representations made by the appellants to be respondents followed but their grievance remained unredressed. Therefore, they filed the grievance petition on 24‑8‑1995.

3. The respondents in their Reply Statement, apart from denying the appellants' claim which, according to them, was not guaranteed or secured under any law, settlement or award, have raised Legal Objections that both the grievance notice and the grievance petition filed by the appellants were time barred. The appellants in proof of their case have filed their affidavits -in‑evidence (Exh.5 to Exh.10) and Bashir Ahmed. Manager Cargo Operation has filed his affidavit‑in‑evidence from respondent's side. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel of both the parties and have also perused the relevant record.

4. It would appear that the learned Judge of Labour Court has disposed the appellants' grievance petition on the basis of legal flaws raised in course of the arguments. He found that the grievance notice served by the appellants on the respondents as well as grievance petition ultimately filed by them were both time‑barred. As provided in subsection (2) of section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969, where a worker himself brings his grievance to the notice of his employer, the employer is required to communicate his decision in writing to the worker within 15 days. It is an admitted position that grievance notice which was issued only once was given on 18‑5‑1995 and as such the grievance petition had to be filed within two months and 15 days following the issuance of the said notice. Thus, the appellants were required to institute their grievance petition latest by' 1‑8‑1995 but their petition was filed on A 24th August, 1995 i.e. after the delay of about 23 days. There is absolutely no explanation from the appellants' side much less convincing explanation, as regards the said delay. The learned Labour Court has, therefore, rightly taken note of such serious legal mishap.

5. Coming to the delay in issuing grievance notice which is dated 18th May, 1995, it is the appellants' own case that on 12th September, 1994 Mr. Nasim Gul, President of CBA Union suddenly told them and other workers not to come for doing the work of Tindals/Winch Helpers but only as ordinary labourers. If this were to be believed the cause of action accrued to them for the first time on the said date i.e. 12th September, 1994. As provided in subsection (1) of section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969 they were bound to bring their such grievance to the notice of the employer within three months of the occurrence of cause of action. That is to say that the grievance notice was to be served latest by 12th December, 1994 but the first and the only grievance notice was admittedly given by the appellants on 18‑5‑1995 i.e. after delay of more than 5 months. Thus, the learned Labour Court has rightly held that both the grievance notice and grievance petition were hopelessly time‑barred. In support of his finding on the question of limitation the learned Judge of Labour Court has rightly placed reliance on the judgment of this Tribunal reported as 2000 PLC 572 which is again based on two authorities reported 'as 1981 PLC 881 and 1981 PLC 888.

6. Even on merits, the appellants do not appear to have a good case. They have not furnished any proof that their right to work as Tindals/Winch Helpers was derived from any statute, award or settlement. If their claim was based on the settlement, dated 15‑3‑1994, the correspondence exchanged in this behalf and relied upon by the appellants clearly shows that the respondents were certainly not responsible for its non‑implementation. According to them the matter of implementation was between the President of the C.B.A. and the appellants with which the respondents/shippers were not concerned. If for any reason best known to the President of the C.B.A., the appellants were not restored to the desired category of workers (i.e. Tindals/Winch Helpers), at least they could not get the desired relief through filing of grievance petition they had filed. Obviously the President of CBA has created the problem for them. They were to work in desired category only on recommendations of President CBA which is the legal link between the workers and employers. Accordingly the appellants had to sort out the problem with the President of the C.B.A. If he is persuaded to accede to their demand, then he could put forward the necessary recommendations before the Establishment for the change of appellants category of work. As a result of above discussion the present litigation is not competent either against the President of C.B.A. or against rest of the respondents. Consequently the appeal is dismissed not only on legal pleas but also on merits. H.B.T./30/K(Lab. Trib) Appeal dismissed.