1989 PLP 67 (PLC)

Ch. Sadiq Mohammad Warraich for Appellant. Mohammad Zaman Qureshi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 13th July, 1987. This is an appeal arising out of the decision dated 26‑3‑1987 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for her reinstatement in service has been dismissed on the grounds that no grievance notice was served and that no application for leave was sent by the appellant to the employer.

2. The allegation for which the appellant was dismissed from service was of long absence. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that no objection was raised in the written statement about the non‑service of grievance notice, therefore, the appellant did not produce any evidence on the record. This is true that there was no such objection but the objection was that the grievance petition was time‑barred. The date of order of dismissal is 7‑6‑1980, whereas the grievance petition was lodged on 24‑2‑1986. If it is held that the grievance notice was served and that it was within time, it would mean that within three months of the order of dismissal the notice was served which date comes to 6‑9‑1980, whereas the grievance petition was brought in 1986. There is no application for condonation of delay nor there is any evidence on the point. The appellant urged that she had learnt about the dismissal in 1982. Even if this date is taken as the starting time of limitation, the petition could be brought upto the end of May, 1982, and thus the petition was time‑barred. Learned counsel says that a departmental appeal was lodged which may be treated as grievance notice. No copy of the so‑called departmental appeal has been brought on the record by the appellant. Ex. P‑1 dated 22‑2‑1986 is said to be the reply to the appeal. Ex. P‑1 shows that request for fresh appointment was made. A copy of the appeal is on the record which may have been brought by the respondent but it was not tendered in evidence. Its perusal shows that as mentioned in Ex.P‑1 the prayer made by the appellant in the so‑called appeal was for re‑employment. An application for re‑employment cannot be treated as a departmental appeal. Again the said application, as is evident from Ex.P.‑1, was addressed to the Secretary Communication, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad, whereas the grievance petition was brought through Divisional Engineer, Telephone Services. An application made either to the appointing authority or appellate authority may be treated as a grievance notice but since the application sent by the appellant was not sent to any of the abovementioned two authorities, it has rightly not been treated as a departmental appeal and thus a grievance notice. Since no appeal was made, the period of limitation for bringing the grievance petition did not stand extended and thus the grievance petition was hopelessly time barred.

3. The other point argued is that no charge‑sheet or show‑cause notice was served, inasmuch as before getting the show‑cause notice published in the newspaper, cutting of which is Ex.R‑1, no attempt was made to serve the notice personally upon the appellant. There may be some force in this argument but since the very grievance petition was time‑barred, it was not maintainable in law.

4. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. A.E./390/Lb. P. Appeal dismissed.