1989 PLP 641 (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Employer to be impleaded‑‑Petitioner employee of Municipal Committee‑‑Petition against Municipal Committee‑‑plea that petition against Municipal Committee a corporate body with common Sea was not maintainable, repelled‑‑Held, such plea may be well‑founded a regular civil suit but not in Labour cases. Manzoor Ahmad for Appellant. Sardar Adeeb for Respondent. Date of hearing: 30th May, 1983. This appeal is directed against the decision dated 16:2‑198 assed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No 7 Gujranwala, whereby the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.

2. The allegation against the respondent was that he had blocked the culvert of stagnant water by putting in it an envelope full of rubbish. Two witnesses are alleged to have seen the respondent doing so. I have gone through the enquiry file carefully but I have not been able to find the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the defence witnesses. Either the complete enquiry file was not produced by the appellant before the learned lower Court or the evidence of the prosecution and defence witnesses was only orally heard but was not reduced into writing. Since the record of the evidence is not on the enquiry file, it cannot be said whether opportunity of cross‑examination was given to the respondent or not. This also cannot be said whether the witnesses actually stated that which the Enquiry Officer has said in his report:

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the petition was not maintainable as it was given against the Municipal Committee, which is a body corporate with common seal. Such an objection may be founded in regular civil cases but not in Labour cases. In such cases the employer has to be sued. The objection, therefore, has no force. Learned counsel has also said that the appellant committee is an `industry'. Such an objection firstly should have been raised in the grievance notice and grievance petition so that the respondent could have met it by producing evidence about the functions of the Committee. As such an objection was not raised, none of the parties led evidence on it. Without evidence such a point cannot be decided, so cannot be entertained during arguments of the appeal.

4. The other point argued is that since the Labour Court is not the employee of the Municipal Committee, it had no jurisdiction. The argument is misconceived. There is no law that a case against an employee of municipal Committee can be heard by an employee of the Committee only.

5. It has been contended that no grievance notice was served. Copy of grievance notice is Exh. P‑7 and its postal receipt is Exh. P‑

8. It has been argued that the petition was time‑barred. On 27‑12‑1980 the respondent was dismissed. Grievance notice was given on 15‑2‑1981, and grievance petition was lodged on 19‑3‑1981. So neither the grievance notice nor the grievance petition was time- barred. As upshot of the observations made above, I do not find any force in the appeal, which is hereby dismissed. E./640/Lb. Appeal dismissed