1988 PLP 197 (PLC)

This is an application filed by Khan Muhammad, for the redress of the grievance under section 25‑A Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, for re‑instatement against the wrongful termination of his services, with back benefits.

2. Applicant claims that his services were terminated on 1‑4‑1987 and he sent the notice of grievance on 5‑4‑1987 to the employer, but no intimation was sent to him, till he filed the case in the Labour Court.

3. Initially, the respondent has taken the legal objection that applicant submitted the notice of grievance under section 25‑A, IRO, on 5‑4‑1987, when he should have filed application on 21‑6‑1987. But the applicant has filed application before the Labour Court on 20‑7‑1987 after delay of one month.

4. In the written statement, the respondent has given the reference also of the reported decision as the judicial precedent of the case law of P L D 1973 Quetta on page 129, that each day of limitation should be explained. The decision has not been produced before the Court for reference.

5. However, when the matter was fixed for evidence, Mr. Mehboob Rizvi desired that the preliminary objection regarding question of law on the point of limitation be decided first whether the maintainability of the application finds the cause of action for the redress of the grievance with particular reference to the requirement of section 25‑A, IRO, by emphasizing the time limitation to bring the application before the Labour Court is the mandatory requirement in this proviso of section 25‑A, IRO.

6. In view of this legal objection, the Court has made further reference to the file of the case and discovered that on 23rd of July, 1987, application is made for the condonation that applicant was attacked by the jaundice, the applicant was on the bed, advised by the doctor from 25‑6‑1987 to 22‑7‑1987, therefore, he could not file the petition on the first opening day of July, 1987 due to holidays of the Court.

7. Today on 24th of August, 1987 when the matter came for hearing Mr. Kohistani has produced the medical certificate of qualified doctor.

8. Mr. Mehboob Rizvi also has filed application under section 56, IRO that applicant Khan Muhammad has made the false statement when applicant has filed his own affidavit before this Labour Court in application 88 of 198 on 7‑7‑1987, and, therefore, he has made a false statement before the Court of law to take cognizance of this offence. There is no doubt about it that on 7‑7‑1987 if the applicant complained of illness and was advised the rest, his presence physically before this Court, swearing an affidavit before the Clerk of the Court, gives sufficient scope for deliberation, as to the quality of his contention what he proposed to offer in support of his illness before the Court of law, in the judicial proceedings, to consider the perjury.

9. Regarding time limitation, to bring the petition for the redress of grievance section 25‑A provides, that worker may bring his grievance in respect of any right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law or any award or settlement to the notice of his employer‑‑within three months of the day on which the cause of such grievance arises. Subsection (2) provides that if the worker brings the grievance to the notice of the employer, the employer shall within 15 days of the grievance being brought to his notice communicate his decision in writing to the worker.

10. Subsection (4) reads which is relevant that' if employer fails to communicate decision within the period specified, in subsection (2) or as the case may be subsection (3) or if the worker is dissatisfied may take the matter to the Labour Court, provided that the worker who desires to take the matter to the Labour Court shall do so within period of 2 months from the date of communication of the employer or as the case may be from the expiry of the period mentioned in subsection (2) or subsection (3) as the case may be.

11. In context of the above proviso, firstly the time limitation is three months within which the notice is to be given from the date of grievance but subsection (2) provides that if notice is given the employer shall give the intimation within fifteen days or if he fails to give intimation within fifteen days, subsection (4) will follow that is the time of two months, is to be computed, from the date when employer has failed, to communicate decision. In other words, within the proviso of subsection (1), the formality of the grievance is to be completed within 3 months. Or if he takes the choice to give the notice immediately following the day of grievance or few days after the grievance which has arisen to him, the time limitation is to be computed within the legal application of subsections (2), (3) and (4) of the IRO. If the termination was on 1‑4‑1987 and immediately after termination notice has been sent on 5th April, 1987 and the employer failed to communicate decision and 15 days are added, the petition was to be filed on 20‑4‑1987. The application is filed before the Labour Court on 20‑7‑1987. Application for condonation is filed on 22‑7‑1987. Medical Certificate is filed on 24‑8‑1987. If from that concept the time is seen the application is effected by limitation, due to his negligence.

12. There are number of judicial precedents of which the Court has been referring in the cases that limitation is the mandatory requirement under section 25‑A before granting any relief.

13. Mr. Mehboob Rizvi has also rightly contended that each day is to be explained for the delay caused that there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner. Mr. Mehboob Rizvi further has drawn the Court's indulgence to the very aspect of his disability to show that if the applicant is not straight forward in his assertion about the illness to which he has taken as exception for the condonation of the time, in the view of Mr. Rizvi he has given the false statement which is clear perjury and to call for interference on the point of limitation.

14. The Court has considered the factual aspect. Firstly the jaundice is not the illness to paralyse the movements, secondly if the certificate is issued by Medical Officer of no less than qualification of M. B. B. S. the Court has given considerable thought to it, but failed to reconcile with the straight forward conduct of the applicant on the point of illness which has not stood the judicial test. Even if the Court takes the view that certificate may be genuine the disease is not of such nature to have shown his movements paralyzed for presenting the petition, before the Labour Court within the time limitation. There are also judicial precedents, to this effect that ignorance of law is no defence. Even there is equitable maxim that equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent.

15. In view of the legal position, on the question of time limitation, to bring the grievance before the Court, the application is not in time. Application is dismissed on point of law. A. E. /988/Lb.S Application dismissed.