1976 PLP 654 (PLC)

Petition No. 95 of 1972, decided on 2nd June 1973. West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)

S. O. 18-Grievance notice-Provisions mandatory-Notice given after expiry of prescribed limitation period - Effect - Subsequent petition to Court, held, not entertainable. Syed Israr Hussain Zaidi, petitioner, has brought this application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969 (hereinafter `called the I. R. O.) challenging his reversion to work-charge Establishment in 1954 praying for the payment of the difference; the order of his reversion from the post of Line Superintendent Grade I to the post of S. S. O. II. He has claimed that before promotion as Line Superintendent be was drawing Rs. 270 but on promotion he was given start pay at Rs. 230 which is wrong and ought to be Rs. 270. He has also challenged the order of his reversion dated 11-1-1972 from the post of Line Superintendent to S. S. O. and his transfer from Line Superintendent Grade II to Line Superintendent. The petitioner has appeared as his own witness and has depose that he was employed in 1948 as a Lineman in the Electricity Department and remained on work-charge basis upto 1950 when he was made regular line-man and he worked as such upto 1951. He goes on to ray that in 1951 his cadre was changed from Lineman II to Assistant Sub-Station Attendant and his pay was increased but he did not want to serve as an Assistant Sub-Station Attendant as he did not know the work, therefore, on his request he was reverted as Lineman II. He further says that on 28-3-1952 he was again promoted as Assistant Sub-Station Attendant and on 31-8-54 he was made work-charge and on 1-3-55 was made Assistant Sub-Station Attendant he brought an appeal challenging the break caused in his service but it was rejected. He says that he was not officially informed about the fate of his appeal in April or May 1972 but he learnt that the appeal had been rejected whereby he gave grievance notice to the Chairman, WAPDA, on 1-5-1972 but no reply was received. He further says that in September 1971 he obtained copy Exh. P. 1 of the decision of the appeal. He goes on to say that on 6-9-1971 his wife appealed to the Managing Director (Power) but it was rejected and no information about the rejection was given to him. He lastly says that if he had not been transferred and promoted as Assistant Sub-Station Attendant, he would have been S. D. O. by now. Muhammad Sharif, Assistant, Office of the Chief Engineer, WAPDA, Lahore, has been examined as P. W. 1 and his evidence is that if the petitioner had remained Lineman Grade 11, his line of promotion would have been Lineman Grade I, Line Superintendent Grade II, Line Superintendent Grade I and S. D. O.; that the qualifications for the Line Superintendent are given in Exh. P. 1. He further says that the petitioner was promoted as Line Superintendent Grade I vide office letter No. 57/T dated 14-7-1970 but afterwards the order was withdrawn vide letter copy of which is R. 2 because it was against the rules. He goes on to say that on 16.7-64 the petitioner was promoted as Sub-Station Operator Gracie II, and was promoted S. S. O. Grade I, vide office order No. 67/T dated 20-4-1965 but he refused to join. He further says that the petitioner preferred an appeal against the termination order recorded in 1964 but he does not snow if it was accepted or rejected but adds that he was made again regular Assistant Sub-Station Operator w. e. f. 1-3-1955. Lastly he says that the Line Super intendents Grade I made representations against the promotion of the petitioner whereby order copy of which is Exh. R. 2 was passed. In cross -examination he says that for the promotion to the post of Line Superintendent Grades I & II there was no specific qualification and on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness promotion was made. He further says that WAPDA made rules of Service in 1971. He goes on to say that no reason is given in the Service Book for the termination of the petitioner in 1964. He also says that order of termination is not on the record. He also says that he has not brought the seniority list but adds that from letter dated 4-5-1954 it appears that the petitioner was junior most and, therefore, was terminated. The petition fails on the short ground that grievance notice was no given in time nor the present petition was brought within limitation. The A petitioner was reverted on 26-8-1971 as mentioned in the grievance notice On 6-9-1971 the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Chief Engineer against the reversion and the Chief Engineer on 8-9-1971 recommended the case for removal of the reversion order. Grievance notice was given on 1-7-1972 whereas according to Standing Order 18, it could be given within 15 days of the accrual of the cause of grievance. According to the said order if reply to the notice had been received, the petitioner could bring application to the Labour Court within one month and if noreply was received within 2 months but he brought the present petition on 27-7-1972. So notice as well as the application are hopelessly time-barred. The petitioner had challenged office order dated 11-1-1972 also whereby he was reverted from Line Superintendent Grade I to S. S. O. II, but the grevience notice and the application are time-barred in respect of the said reversion also. Provision of Standing Order 18 are mandatory and their strict compliance was necessary. The petitioner has said that he preferred an appeal but that appeal was not against either the reversion order dated 26-8-71 or 11-1-1972. Moreover, according to him, he had obtained the copy of the order of appeal in August or September, 1971 and from that date also the grievance notice and the application are tine-barred Exh. P. 1 in reality is not the final order passed by the Appellate Authority but is the copy of the recommendation made by the Chief Engineer, Lahore Region, Electricity WAPDA. As a result of the observations made above, I have no other alternative but to dismiss the petition and accordingly I dismiss it.