1989 PLP 380 (PLC)

‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Removal from service‑‑Reinstatement without back benefits‑‑Grievance notice not served by worker within prescribed time and grievance petition also not filed within time‑‑Lower Court disposing of petition 'without recording any finding on point of service of grievance notice and filing of grievance petition within prescribed time‑‑Order of lower Court accepting grievance petition of worker and reinstating him in service set aside and case remanded for decision afresh after deciding question whether grievance notice and grievance petition were within time. AghaTaj Muhammad for Appellants. Ch. Ali Hussain Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 10th July, 1988. The appeal captioned above emerges from the decision dated 9‑3‑1988 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi whereby the grievance petition of the respondent for his reinstatement was accepted without back benefits. The respondent has for claiming back benefits brought cross objections, which arc being disposed of along with the appeal.

2. The respondent had by his grievance petition challenged the order dated 13‑3‑1982 whereby he was removed from service on account of long absence. He also challenged the order dated 21‑10‑1985 whereby the order of his re employment was cancelled. In the written statement it was contended that the grievance petition and grievance notice were time barred but the learned lower Court has not recorded any finding thereon. In para No. 2 of his grievance petition the respondent stated that under the order dated 8‑12‑1981 whereby he was re‑employed the Foreman had not put him on duty. Duty was not given because a question had arisen at that time that no grievance notice and grievance petition were brought before 1986. He in para.No. 2 of his petition urged that in 1985 he had learnt that he had been removed from service in 1982. Since an objection had been raised that the grievance notice and the grievance petition were time barred, the respondent was duty bound to give actual (jai c on which he had come to know about the order of his removal from service which was passed in 1982. He could give grievance notice within three months of the date on which he came to know that vide order dated 1982 he had been removed from service. In 1985 he was not in service because he as mentioned above stated that he had not been put on duty by the Foreman in compliance with the order dated 8‑12‑1981 copy of which is Ex. P‑

9. Since he had remained out of duty right from 8‑12‑1981 up to the last he, should have served grievance months and brought grievance petition within two and half of months service of the grievance nonce. No final finding can be recorded, since the learned lower Court has not decided the point.

3. As a result the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision the case is remanded for fresh decision after deciding the questions whether the grievance notice and the grievance petition were within time. The parties will be at liberty to produce any further evidence in support of their case. M.Y.H./577/Lb/P Appeal accepted