1995 PLP 393 (PLC)

This is an appeal from the decision of the Punjab Labour Court No.1, Lahore, dated 26th of June, 1994, whereby the grievance petition filed by the appellant was dismissed on the ground that it was premature.

2. The appellant was employed with the respondent as a Daftri. After having rendered service for about twenty years, he resigned and his resignation was accepted with effect from 3rd of June, 1983. However, he was re‑appointed as a Daftri with effect from 4th of June, 1983 on contract basis. His contractual service was terminated with effect from the afternoon of 28th of February, 1991. He assailed the termination order before the N.I.R.C. and obtained a stay order in his favour. This interim stay order was vacated on 21st of July, 1993. In spite of that, according to the allegation of the appellant, he was allowed to continue in service. However, on 13th of January, 1994 he was stopped from performing his duty by a verbal order. On 15th of January, 1994 he served a grievance notice and on 23rd of January, 1994 he filed a grievance petition challenging the legality of the termination of his contractual service.

3. Alongwith the grievance petition, the appellant filed an application for a temporary injunction. A notice was issued to the respondent for 28th of February, 1994 meanwhile he was restrained from stopping the appellant from performing his duty on 28th of January, 1994 the respondent filed an application for vacation of the interim stay order. This application was opposed by the appellant.

4. After hearing arguments addressed by learned counsel for the parties, the learned Labour Court vide its impugned decision while dismissing the application for stay order, dismissed the main grievance petition also on the ground that it was premature having been filed before the expiry of the period of fifteen days from the date of service of the grievance notice. The appellant has filed this appeal to assail ~the dismissal of the main grievance petition.

5. I have heard leaned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The relevant provisions of law are contained in subsections (2) and (4) of section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 which are reproduced below:‑‑ "(2)????? Where a worker himself brings his grievance to the notice of the employer shall, within fifteen days of the grievance being brought to his notice, communicate his decision in writing to the worker. (4)??????? If the employer fails to communicate a decision within the period specified in subsection (2) or, as the case may be, subsection (3), or if the worker is dissatisfied with such decision, the worker or shop steward may take the matter to his collective bargaining agent or the Labour Court, or as the case may be, the collective bargaining agent may take the matter to the Labour Court, and where the matter is tak6 to the Labour Court it shall give a decision within seven days from the date of the matter being brought before it as if such matter were in an industrial dispute: Provided that a worker who desires to so take the matter to the Labour Court shall do so within a period of two months from the date of the communication of the employer or, as the case may, from the expiry of the period mentioned in subsection (2) or subsection (3), as the case may be.

6. The above provisions do not envisage a bar on an employee to file a grievance petition before the expiry of fifteen days from the date of service of his grievance notice. The period of fifteen days is provided to an employer to give a decision on the dispute agitated before him by an employee by way of grievance notice. If an employee in view of the urgency of his grievance, is constrained to file a grievance petition in the Labour Court before the expiry of the period of fifteen days from the date of service of the grievance notice, the Labour Court can wait till the expiry of the above period to see what decision has been passed by the employer meanwhile. However, the dismissal of the grievance petition on this ground is unjustified. Learned counsel for the appellant has cited Ghulam Nabi v. District Manager, Government Transport Service, Islamabad (1980 PLC 568(a)) which supports this view. No precedent to the contrary has been cited by learned counsel for the respondent.

7. In the result, this appeal is accepted, the impugned decision as regards the main grievance petition is set aside and the grievance petition is remanded to the learned Labour Court for its decision on merits in accordance with law.

8. The parties shall appear before the learned Labour Court on 3rd of April, 1995. H.B.T./783/Lb.P ???????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeal accepted.