1991 PLP 104 (PLC)

1984 P L C 1665 rel. MA. Hassan Malik for Appellants. A.T. Mahmood for Respondents. Date of hearing: 5th April, 1990. These two appeals are directed against separate orders, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No.IV at 'Karachi, dated 28-8 1989; whereby he dismissed the grievance petitions of both the appellants. As the facts and points of Law involved in these appeals and the respondents are same; therefore, I propose to dispose of both these appeals by this single decision.

2. I have heard Mr. MA. Hassan Malik, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. A.T. Mahmood, learned Advocate on behalf of the respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.

3. Both the appellants were appointed as Gangmen in the respondent Railways and were promoted as P.W. Mistry in 1981 and after qualifying prescribed training they were promoted as Assistant Way Inspectors somewhere in 1982. They were, however, reverted by letter, dated 26-8-1989. They filed departmental appeals against this order on 5-9-1989; but before the decision on the said appeals; they filed their grievance petitions before the learned Labour Court. The appellants filed Stay applications praying therein that the learned Labour Court may stay their reversion pending final decision of their grievance petitions. The respondents, however, filed applications under Order 7 Rule 11, C.P.C. The learned Labour Court accepted the applications under Order 7 Rule 11, C.P.C. filed by the respondent Railways and dismissed the grievance petitions of the appellants on the ground, that they were premature in view of the fact that the departmental appeals had not been decided.

4. While discussing the case, the learned Labour Court came to the conclusion, that it had territorial jurisdiction and further that the departmental appeals filed by the appellants could be considered as grievance notices in view of the decision of this Tribunal, reported in 1984 P L C 1665. No cross appeals have been filed against these findings of the learned Labour Court.

5. The learned Labour Court also pointed that it was true, that in view of the Gazette Notification of the Railways, the promotees were entitled to confirmation after completion of 3 years service. However, the learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that because the appeals were not decided, therefore, the grievance petitions were premature and further contradicted its earlier finding, by holding that till the decision on the appeals, the departmental appeals could not be considered as grievance notices. The cause of action in view of the Gazette Notification, mentioned in the impugned order, arose to the appellants on the day, when the reversion orders were issued. If a departmental appeal is accepted as grievance notice by the learned Labour Court, it cannot be considered not to be grievance notice, because the appeal was not decided.

6. The aggrieved workman has got two remedies open to him. He can either wait for decision of appeal and then give fresh grievance notice and file grievance petition on the basis of such fresh grievance notice; or, he may treat the departmental appeal as grievance notice and if he does not get redress within 15 days; he may file grievance petition thereafter. The appellants apparently chose the second remedy therefore, their grievance petitions cannot be dismissed only on the ground that their appeals were not disposed of by the Department. I would, therefore, set aside the impugned orders of the learned Labour Court and remand both the cases back to the learned Labour Court to dispose of them on merits unprejudiced by the previous orders, after giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence, if they so desire. M.Y.H./1658/Lb.S Cases remanded.