Find a Lawyer

Constitutional Petition No. 465 of 1977, decided on 7th September, 1977.

‑‑ Art. 199 and Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 25‑A‑Grievance notice‑Limitation‑Petitioner filing applica tion under S. 25‑A after giving two grievance notices Counting period of limitation from first notice application held time‑barred concurrently‑Such concurrent finding on facts and fresh appraisal of evidence, held, not warranted through constitutional petition.

Syed Iqbal Ahmad for Petitioner.

.‑The petitioner was employed as a clerk in the Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited, respondent No. 1 herein. He was charge‑sheeted on the allegations of misappropriation of Rs. 1,000 from savings bank account of a minor, Master Nasir Ali, by allegedly forging the signature of his guardian, Mst. Safia Begum. A domestic enquiry was conducted and ultimately he was dismissed from service of the Bank with effect from 10th February, 1977.

It is alleged by the petitioner that on 9th March, 1977 he sent a grievance notice to the respondent No. 1 which was replied on 18th March, 1977. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application on 12th May, 1976 under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, before the Presiding Officer, Sind Labour Court, challenging the order of dismissal passed against him. The respondent No. 1 contested the proceedings. The Labour Court recorded evidence of the parties and dismissed the application on 24th May, 1977 on the ground that it was time‑barred. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order which was also dismissed by the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal on 4th July, 1977. The correctness of the said orders dated 24th May, 1977 and 4th July, 1977 passed by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 has been challenged in this petition. The respondent No. 2 who had the occasion to record the evidence of the parties found that the petitioner had earlier submitted a grievance notice to the Bank on 11th February, 1976, a copy whereof was produced by the respondent No. 1 alongwith their written statement. The said notice was replied by the Management on 16th February, 1976 and this reply was acknowledged by the petitioner on 21st February, 1976. The respondent No. 2 has held that according to the admitted position the petitioner had given another notice dated 9th March, 1976 to the respondent No.1 which was also replied on 18th March, 1976. It would thus appear that on the basis of evidence, the respondent No. 2 came to the conclusion that the petitioner had in fact given two grievance notices on 11th February, 1976 and 9th March, 1976 respectively and, therefore, counting the period of limitation from the first notice, the application under section 25‑A of the I. R. O., 1969, which came to be filed on 22nd A May, 1976, was clearly time‑barred. This finding was upheld by the respondent No. 3. Thus the matter stands concluded by two concurrent findings of fact and a fresh appraisal of evidence is not warranted through a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution. We, therefore do not find any substance in this petition which is dismissed in limine.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.