1989 PLP 774 (PLC)

Mehboob Rizvi for Respondent. This order will dispose of the abovementioned grievance petition filed on 11‑6‑1988 under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969 whereby the petitioner has prayed for direction to respondent to reinstate him in service with full back benefits.

2. Briefly the case of the petitioner according to the petition is that he was permanent workman of the respondent working as Helio Operator to whom the provisions of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 were applicable. It is contended that on 7‑10‑1987, respondent issued charge‑sheet against the petitioner on the ground that he was in the habit of absenting himself from duty without permission; however, the said charge‑sheet was issued due to three days sick leave and two days sick leave of the petitioner during July, 1987. The petitioner gave explanation but even after that domestic enquiry was held and it is alleged that the Enquiry Officer had acted partially in favour of respondent and gave adverse report against him whereafter second show‑cause notice dated 29‑12‑1987 was issued to the petitioner to give explanation within four days as to why he should not be dismissed from service but instead the petitioner moved application dated 2‑1‑1988 requesting for further time which was not allowed and the impugned order was passed on 2‑2‑1988. Thereafter, he sent the grievance notice dated 18‑4‑1988 which was not accepted vide reply dated 26‑4‑1988 of the respondent; hence the present petition.

3. Whereas, the respondent through their reply statement have resisted the instant grievance petition on the ground that the same is time‑barred because the first grievance notice dated 6‑3‑1988 of the petitioner was replied by them vide their letter dated 21‑3‑1988. The respondent have also contended that the proper and legal enquiry was conducted against the petitioner in which the charges of habitual absence without permission were proved against the petitioner and, therefore, they have prayed for dismissal of the grievance petition

4. In support his petition, the petitioner has filed his affidavit in evidence. Whereas in defence, respondent have tiled affidavit in evidence of Tauqir Ahmed Kadri, the Manager Personnel. Both the witnesses were duly cross‑examined. After perusal of the written arguments submitted on behalf of both the parties and the record, my finding is as under.

5. The question of limitation being very crucial and important legal plea, the same is to be decided first. And, in this regard, it is seen that the contention of the petitioner is that he had sent his grievance notice on 18‑4‑1988 after the departmental appeal dated 6‑3‑1988 and the revision petition dated 31‑3‑1988 filed by him were dismissed, and, had Filed the grievance petition after the said grievance notice dated 18‑4‑1988 was replied in negative vide letter dated 26‑4‑1988 by the respondent. It was further contended that under the law, petitioner could file the departmental appeal and revision but the same has been denied by the respondent in their reply statement and also at the time of cros examining the petitioner. Under the circumstances, it was duty of the petitioner to prove that under the law, he had a right to file the departmental appeal and revision before sending the grievance notice to be followed by the grievance petition but he has failed to do so and, therefore, it is held that the petitioner did not have right in law to file the departmental appeal or the revision.

6. In view of the above circumstances, the first communication of the petitioner dated 6‑3‑1988 Exh. A/16 produced by the petitioner and which appears to have been received by the respondent on 7‑3‑1988 is to be considered as a grievance notice. Now this grievance notice Exh. A/16 has been replied vide letter dated 21‑3‑1988 but there is no admission of the petitioner or any other proof regarding the date on which it was received by the petitioner; however B under the law under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. 1969, the grievance notice sent by the worker himself is to be replied within fifteen days of its receipt by the employer and, therefore, the period of fifteen days in the present matter had expired on 21‑3‑1988. And, thereafter, the petitioner was entitled to file the grievance petition within the period of two months as prescribed in proviso to subsection (4) of section 25‑A of the I.R.O., 1969, whereas this petition was filed on 11‑6‑1988 i.e. about nineteen days beyond the period of limitation without an), lawful excuse.

7. Under the circumstances, it is held that the grievance petition is time barred and, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed on that account. A.E./1416/Lb. S Petition dismissed.