1984 PLP 1159 (PLC(CS))

Agha Taj Muhammad for Appellants. Muhammad Anwar Lodhi, Representative for Respondents. Date of hearing : 28th April, 1982. This appeal is directed against the decision, dated 23rd April, 1978 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petition of the respondents for the difference between T. A./D. A. and consolidated touring allowance was accepted.

2. The facts are that before 30th March, 1976 T. A./D. A. was allowed to the trollymen. Letter Exh. R. 4 was issued on 30th March, 1976, whereby instead of T. A./D. A. consolidated travelling allowance at Rs. 90 per mensem was allowed to the respondents. On 7th February, 1977 again the policy was changed and letter Exh. R. 1 was circulated on 9th February, 1977 cancelling the earlier letter Exh. R. 4 and reviving the rule of T. A./D. A. Thereupon, the respondents made an applica tion under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 claiming difference between T. A./D. A. to which but for letter Exh. R. 4 they were entitled and the consolidated travelling allowance for the period from 1st April, 1976 to 8th February, 1977. The application was opposed.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has said that the grievance petition was time‑barred, inasmuch as the letter Exh. R. 4 was issued on 30th March, 1976 which was challenged in application under section 25‑A, but the grievance notice was sent on 6th October, 1977. Letter Exh. R. 4 was declared null and void by an award arid on the strength of it order Exh. P. 3 was made by the learned lower Court previously from 5th March, 1977. Learned counsel says that from the date of Exh. P. 3 the grievance notice is time‑barred. On the other hand, representative of the respondents has said that letter Exh. P. 1 was issued by the Inspector of Works to the Assistant Engineer for permission to prepare bills of arrears of difference. Reference to Exh. P. 2 was made to the D. P. O. for advise but no reply came. He has also said that the respondents being illiterate, the bills were prepared by the office and since permission was sought and for advice letter was sent to D. P. O. which was not responded to the bills of arrears were not prepared and the respondents were not responsible for the delay. Exbs. P. 1 and P. 2 support the case of the respondents. On behalf of the appellants no document was brought on the record to the effect that Exhs. P. 1 and P. 2 were duly replied and that from the date of the reply the grievance notice was time‑barred. In the absence of any document to the contrary, the presumption is irresistible that letters Exhs. P. 1 and P. 2 were not responded to. Since no permission came, the bills for arrears were not prepared. This argu ment of the learned representative of the respondents also is not devoid of force that the bills; according to the practice, were prepared by the office and not by the employees they being illiterate persons. Letters Exhs. P. 1 and P. 2 support this argument of the representative of the respondents. So no question of limitation arises. After waiting for reason able time when no response came, nor the arrears were paid to the respon dents, they brought the grievance petition, therefore, neither the petition was time barred, nor premature.

4. On facts the learned counsel for the appellants has not challenged the order of the learned trial Judge. In these circumstances, the learned trial Judge rightly accepted the grievance petition of the respondents. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed. A. E. Appeal dismissed.