1976 PLP 233 (PLC)

‑‑‑--S. 25‑A‑Grievance procedure‑Order of termination of service becoming effective from date of its service upon workman‑Depart mental rules permitting grievance procedure in shape of appeal

Appeal submitted and despite reminder no reply received for about two months‑Departmental appeal, in circumstances, amounted to grievance procedure required under S. 25‑A and application to Junior Labour Court under S. 25‑A without waiting for decision on depart mental appeal, held, within stipulated time and justified. Abdul Hameed Khan for Appellant. Sajjad Hussain Zaidi for Respondents. Present appeal is directed again, t order dated 244'‑74 where Junior Labour Court No. V, Hyderabad, dismissed the petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969 in limine filed by the appellant for his re‑instatement in service with back benefits, on the ground that appellant did not adopt grievance procedure before filing the petition. The facts are that the appellant was a permanent railway employee with his posting at Hyderabad. He was removed from service with effect from 19‑6‑74 by an order which was served on 25‑6‑

74. On 28‑6‑74 appellant sent a grievance notice in the form of a departmental appeal to respondent No. 3 through respondent No.

1. Appellant also submitted a reminder dated 25‑7‑

74. Ultimately appellant filed his petition of section 25‑A before Junior Labour Court No. V, Hyderabad, on 23‑8‑

74. Barring the above appeal and reminder, appellant did not send any other notice to the respondents The only question involved in the present matter is whether the said departmental appeal filed by the appellant amounted to grievance procedure. Under section 25‑A no particular form of grievance notice has been given. In the instant case the departmental rules also permitted a grievance procedure in the shape of an appeal. Therefore, this grievance notice could be the same as required by section 25‑A, I. R. O. 1969. Since in the present case the order of removal had already become effective from 25‑6‑74 and in no way had to become effective from the date of the decision of depart mental appeal, the time to come to the Labour Court was to be regulated according to section 25‑A, I. R. O. 1969. Consequently, appellant was justified to come to the Labour Court without waiting for the decision of the departmental appeal. I, therefore, find that in the instant case A departmental appeal amounted to grievance procedure as required by section 25‑A I. R. O. 1969 and that appellant had come to the Labour Court within the stipulated period. In the light of above findings, I after accepting the appeal set aside impugned order. Matter is remanded back for fresh trial to Junior Labour Court No. V, Hyderabad.