1989 PLP 892 (PLC(CS))

(b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑

‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Grievance petition against termination of service‑‑Estoppel‑‑Question of estoppel, held, did not arise unless total dues were paid and received without protest. Appellant in person. Sh. Ezad Masud for Respondent. Date of hearing: 25th January, 1988. The appeal captioned above challenges the decision dated 3‑11‑1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement in service has been dismissed on the grounds that on the date on which the appellant appeared in person for the first time after presentation the appeal was time barred and that on account of receiving benefits without protest he is estopped from bringing the grievance petition.

2. The facts of the case are that according to the appellant a fictitious resignation was prepared whereas he never resigned from the post and on the basis of the said resignation his services were terminated. Since the learned lower Court has not recorded any finding on the merits of the case nothing can be said in this respect.

3. The finding of the learned lower Court on the point that the petition was not properly presented and that the appellant did not appear within the limitation before the learned lower Court is correct. An application was given by the respondent for the rejection of the petition on the ground that it was not properly presented. The appellant riled reply to the said petition on 26‑6‑1986. The learned lower Court directed that the point of presentation would be decided alongwith the decision of the main case. The learned counsel for the appellant in the learned lower Court closed evidence for the appellant on 6‑10‑1986. Since an application for rejection of the plaint was given in June, 1986 reply to which was filed on 26‑6‑1986 there was ample opportunity for the appellant to produce evidence on the point. It, therefore, cannot be said that on that point the appellant was not afforded any opportunity. In the order sheet the presence of the learned counsel for the appellant is recorded on the date of presentation and the presence of the appellant is not recorded. According to the order sheet the appellant appeared for the first time after the presentation of the petition on 14‑1‑1985 when the period of limitation had already expired. The date of acceptance of the resignation is 24‑7‑1984 and the grievance notice is dated 20‑10‑1984. The period of limitation expired on 4‑1‑1985, therefore, on 14‑1‑1985 when the appellant had appeared for the first time the petition had become time barred by ten days. The learned lower Court, however, has wrongly dismissed the petition as time‑barred. The petition should have been rejected for improper presentation.

4. So far as estoppel is concerned the decision of the learned lower Court is wrong. Total dues of the appellant were not paid. According to D‑2 pay for 14 days in lieu of unavailed of leave was allowed but in D‑4 according to which the payment was made the amount in lieu of unavailed of leave is not included. Unless total dues are paid, no question of estoppel arises, this finding of the learned lower Court therefore is not sustainable.

5. As a result the appeal is partly accepted and setting aside the decision of the learned lower Court on the point of estoppel, the decision of the learned lower Court is modified converting the direction of the dismissal of the petition into rejection on the ground of improper presentation. A.E./506/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.