1991 PLP 369 (PLC)

S.25-A

Grievance notice

Appellant, dismissed from service, wrote two letters to department as representation against his dismissal

Appellant thereafter sent grievance notice and then filed grievance petition

Appellant failed to prove that he had any departmental right of appeal

First representation of appellant was treated as grievance notice

Held, grievance petition of appellant in circumstances was time-barred and order of Labour Court dismissing petition on said ground was unexceptionable

Since decision of Labour Court was not arrived at on merits and no witness was examined, case was remanded to Labour Court for decision on merits. National Motors v. M. Bashir Ahmed 1979 PLC 175 ref. (e) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)

S.25-A

Grievance notice

No second grievance notice was recognised in law. Umar Hayat Sandhu for Appellant. Muhammad Humayoon for Respondents. Date of hearing: 10th October, 1989. This is an appeal against the order of the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No.IV, dated 20-12-1988, whereby Presiding Officer dismissed the grievance application of the appellant on the point of limitation.

2. I have heard Mr. Umar Hayat Sandhu, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Muhammad Humayoon, learned Advocate for the respondents.

3. Admittedly the dismissal order was passed on 2-2-1988. The appellant sent a letter which is captioned as (sic) to the respondents on 6-3-1988. It is Exh.R/1. This complied by Exh. R/2, dated 21-3-1988 under which the appeal was rejected. On 31-3-1988 he sent another representation viz. Exh. R/3. On 18?4-1988 he sent grievance notice which is Exh.R/4. Exh.R/3 and Exh.R/4 were replied by the respondents vide Exh. R/5 which is dated 26-4-1988 rejecting the request of the appellant. He, therefore, filed the grievance petition on 11-6-1988.

4. The learned Labour Court has held that appellant had failed to prove that he had right of appeal and as such the first letter, dated 6-3-1988 would be deemed to be grievance notice and therefore grievance petition filed on 11-6-1988 would be barred by limitation.

5. It is settled law that where appeal is provided under the Departmental Rules the period of limitation would accrue from the date of decision of appeal. Reference may be made to the decision of this Tribunal in the case of National Bank of Pakistan v. Asad Ali 1987 PLC 380 and also to another decision of this Tribunal in the case of Muhammad Saleem v. Chairman, K.P.T. 1981 PLC 184.

6. The fact that the appeal was entertained and replied to raises presumption that there were rules for Departmental Appeal. The respondent is admittedly Private Limited Company run and managed by the Government. It. is a big Organization and it is not possible to believe that it will have no Rules of Service. The respondents have neither produced Rules of Service to show that there was no right of appeal nor in their written statement they have averred that the appellant had no right of appeal. In the case of Superintendent, Watch and Ward, Pakistan Railways v. Manzoor Hussain 1984 P L C 632, the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab observed that where representation was filed even after rejection of appeal and there was no proof that such representation was not permissible under rules but representation was rejected. Entertainment and rejection of application, in the circumstances held raised presumption that there may be provision for such representation and limitation for grievance notice and petition would start from rejection of representation.

7. Even if we hold that the second letter, dated 31-3-1988 was not under any provision of rule and treat it as grievance notice still the grievance petition would be within time because it was replied on 26-4-1988. Mr. Muhammad Humayoon has relied upon the case of National Motors v. M. Bashir Ahmad 1979 P L C 175, wherein it is observed by this Tribunal that `limitation was to start from the date of reply to grievance notice and subsequent letter sent by the workman to the employer cannot affect the original grievance notice for the purpose of limitation'. In the case of Abdul Rashid v. Karachi Road Transport Corporation 1981 P L C 915 this Tribunal held `first representation containing grievance was to be considered grievance notice for purpose of limitation.' In the case of Emco Employees' Union v. Messrs Emco Ltd. 1984 P L C 1243 learned Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab have held `No second grievance notice was recognised in law and grievance petition was rightly dismissed by Labour Court as time-barred.' There is no dispute with regard to the rule laid down in these citations relied upon by Mr. Muhammad Humayoon but as pointed out in absence of evidence that there was no provision of appeal in the rules it cannot be held that the first letter, dated 6-3-1988 under the caption of `Appeal' was a grievance notice. It may be pointed out that even in the reply to this letter Exh.R.2 dated 21-3-1988 the respondent had shown subject-matter as `appeal for reinstatement'. In my opinion, the letter, dated 6-3-1988 will be presumed to be `Departmental Appeal' under the rules and the subsequent letter, dated 31-3-1988 can be treated as a grievance notice but even this grievance notice was replied on 26-4-1988 therefore the grievance petition, dated 11-6-1988 was within time. Under proviso to subsection (4) of section 25-A, IRO the worker has to take the grievance to the Court within a period of two months from the date of communication of the employer.

8. For the aforesaid reasons I set aside the impugned order of the learned? Labour Court.

9. It appears that no decision has been given by the learned Labour Court on merits and furthermore the respondents have not examined any witness. In view of the above I, therefore, remand the case back to the learned Labour Court for deciding it on merits after giving opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence, if they so desire. M.Y.H./1563/Lb.S.????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Case remanded.