1982 PLP 576 (PLC(CS))

‑‑ S. 25‑A ‑Grievance notice‑Limitation‑Courts from date aggrieved party coming to know about cause of action‑Dismissal order sent through registered post on given address‑Presumption of its reaching destination attached‑Petitioner further visiting factory and allegedly refused work ‑Limitation for grievance notice in circumstances, held, counts from dismissal order was deemed to have come to his notice or when he was refused work ‑Grievance notice sent much after expiry of 3 months counted from both the dates, held, time barred. Wasiullah Qureshi for Appellant. Raees Muhammad Mushtaq for Respondent. Date of hearing: 22nd October, 1981. This appeal is directed against the decision of the learned VIth Labour Court, given on 23rd May, 1981, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant challenging his dismissal from service by the respondent organization. The dismissal is said to have been due to the unautho rised absence of the appellant for a period exceeding 10 days with effect from 8th June, 1980. The dismissal orders were proceeded by a domestic enquiry in which the above misconduct is stated to have been established against the appellant. The enquiry, however, was ex parte as the appellant did not participate in the same.

2. The sole point on which the decision of the learned Labour Court has been assailed by Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi, the learned representative for the appellant is that the appellant was not served with the order of dismissal and consequently, the learned Labour Court has misconceived the position in holding that the grievance petition of the appellant is barred by limitation. It is not disputed that the orders of dismissal of the appellant are dated 15th July, 1980. It has been stated on oath by Col. (Rtd.) S. Riazuddin Ahmad, the Manager Administration of the respondents that the said dismissal orders were sent to the appellant by registered post, A.D. The postal acknowledgment receipt has been pro duced and it shows that the cover containing the orders of dismissal of the appellant was sent through the Post Once to the appellant on 16th July, 1980. There is a presumption that when a cover bearing the correct address of a person is sent by registered post, it will reach the addressee in the normal course of postal business, within reasonable time, when other letters addressed to the addressee, would ordinarily reach him. Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi, however, sought to argue that as there is no evidence that the cover containing the dismissal orders of the appellant was sent to his correct address, this‑presumption cannot arise. He, therefore, sought to argue that there is no tangible evidence to rebut the contention of the appellant that the dismissal orders were received by him. The postal acknowledgement in respect of the orders of dismissal of the appellant shows that the cover containing the dis missal orders was addressed to: ‑"Mr. Ibrahim, son of Hussain Hajib, Coolies, Card No. 54‑D, Chato Chand, son of Ishaque Hajib Hotelwala Chato Chand, District Thatta. The address on the said postal receipt is identical with that the postal receipt in respect of the cover contain ing the charge ‑sheet against the appellant. Which was admittedly received by the appellant. It may further be pointed out that, at no stage, the appellant had asserted that the address on the postal acknowledgment under which the order of dismissal was sent to him is not his correct address. Finally, it may be pointed out that even the second show cause notice was sent to the appellant on the same address. It is true that the cover containing the second show‑cause notice was not delivered to the appellant, but that was because the appellant had refused to take de livery of the same, as appears from the postal endorsement thereon. ‑At this stage, I might mention that the learned Labour Court appears to have been mistaken in taking the view that though the second show‑cause notice is dated 6th July, 1980, it was sent to the appellant on 7th August, 1980. The postal seal on the postal stamps on the cover containing the second show‑cause notice show the date of posting as 8th July, 1980. It would thus appear that the second show‑cause notice was despatched to the appellant by the respondent organization within 2 days of the date borne on the show‑cause notice.

3. Since the grievance notice was given by the appellant to the res pondent organization on 8th November 1980, it was sent by the appel lant much beyond the period of 3 months when the order of dismissal is deemed to have come to his notice. Even otherwise, it has been admitted by the appellant that on the 1st or 2nd of August, 1980, he had gone to the factory of the respondent but was refused work. On B this visit, he could not but have come to know that his services had been terminated by the respondent Even if the limitation period is computed from this date, the grievance notice sent by the appellant would be time barred.

4. For the reasons discussed by me above, I find no merit in this appeal and would accordingly dismiss the same.