1991 PLP 587 (PLC(CS))

Habibullah v. Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways and others 1981 P L C 605 ref. M.A. Hassan Malik for Appellant. Ch. Latif Saghar for Respondents. Date of hearing: 26th November, 1990. This is an appeal against the order of learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No. V at Karachi, dated 30-9-1990; whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed on the ground that it was time-barred.

2. I have heard Mr. M.A. Hassan Malik the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Latif Saghar, learned Advocate for the respondents.

3. Admittedly, the appellant was reverted on 8-9-1989, which order of reversion he had challenged in the grievance petition. He had filed departmental appeal on 12-9-1989 and also sent a reminder on 3-12-1989. But, the departmental appeal was not decided, therefore he filed grievance petition on 5-5-1990. Admittedly, except the departmental appeal and the reminder, no other grievance notice was given by the appellant to the respondents. It is contended by Mr. M.A. Hassan Malik the learned Advocate for the appellant that no specific form of grievance notice is provided under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and even the departmental appeal and the subsequent reminder could be considered as grievance notice. He has relied upon certain case-law in his support. In a case of Habibullah v. Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways etc., reported in 1981 P L C 605, a learned Single Judge of Quetta High Court has held that even a mercy petition submitted after departmental appeal; could be regarded as sufficient compliance of section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969. Is am in agreement with the view of the learned Single Judge of High Court of Quetta as well as with the contention of Mr. Hassan A. Mailk.

4. However, under subsection (4) of section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969, the grievance petition has to be filed within 2-1/2 months from the date of the grievance notice even in case no reply is received. If the departmental appeal, dated 1Z-9-1989 or the reminder, dated 3-12-1989, are considered as grievance notices, still the grievance petition riled on 5-5-1990 would be time-barred. The contention of Mr. Hassan A. Malik that his duty report, dated 5-4-1990, be taken as grievance notice is not tenable because by this application, he had only reported for duty and did not seek any redress against the reversion.

5. The next contention of Mr. Hassan A. Malik is that the appellant had fallen sick and, therefore, he had moved an application for condonation of delay. In this application for condonation of delay also, the appellant has not specifically stated the reasons for delay. He has only stated in paras. 3 and 4 of his application that being on sick leave and undergoing treatment of a doctor, he was declared fit for duty on 3-4-1990 and, therefore, reported for duty on 5-4-1990. He has not stated therein that because of his sickness, he was not able to file the grievance petition. Even, if this reason is accepted, still on his own showing the appellant was declared fit for duty on 3-4-1990, but he did not rile his grievance petition till 5-5-1990. He has not explained this delay from 3-4-1990 to 5-5-1990. He has relied upon a decision of this Tribunal, reported in 1990 P L C 763, wherein an application for condonation of delay was moved on the ground of illness which was supported by medical certificate and there was no counter-affidavit filed in rebuttal, therefore, the delay was condoned. However, in this case, the appellant had not filed any affidavit stating that he could not file the grievance petition because of his illness. He had filed an-affidavit which is in fact in support of his application for ad interim injunction. Besides, as pointed above, even, if hi, sickness is considered as good ground of delay, that ground did not exist after 3-4-1990, when he was certified to be fit. There being no valid reason for delay from 3-4-1990 to 5-5-1990, the grievance petition has rightly been dismissed by the learned Labour Court as being time-barred. I see no merit in this appeal, which is dismissed accordingly. M.Y.H./1794/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.