Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Appeal No. KAR‑850 of 1980, heard on 28th January, 1981.
‑‑‑S. 25-A‑Grievance notice to employer‑Served after expiry of 3 months limitation period‑‑Invalid‑Petition based upon such notice not maintainable.
‑ S. 25‑A read with West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial ‑Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (Vi of 1968), S. 2 (l) & S. O. 12 (3)‑‑Chawkidar‑Doing neither any manual nor clerical work‑Not a workman under West Pakistan Industrial and. Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968‑‑Not entitled to grievance petition against termination of service.
Appellant in person.
Date of hearing : 28th January, 1981.
The appellant, who was originally taken up in service in the K.M.C the respondent herein, as a cooli, and at the relevant time is said to have been working as a Chowkidar, was dismissed from service with effect from 1st April, 1978, vide the Order of the Director, Parks & Recreation, dated 10th January 1979, on account of his continuous authorised absence, disobedience and for other reasons communicated to him in the snow‑cause notice, dated 25th November, 1978. The appel lant challenged the orders of his dismissal before the learned Labour Court which has dismissed his grievance petition on the grounds, firstly, that the grievance notice was not served within the period of three months from the accruing of the grievance of the appellant as required under section 25‑A, I. R. O. and that further it had been established in a domestic enquiry that the appellant was unauthorisedly absent for a period of more than ten days with effect from 1st April, 1978.
2. As 'the orders of dismissal of the appellant were issued on 10th January, 1977 and he appears to have been served with the orders on the same date, the grievance notice should have been served by him on his employer by 9th April, 1979. However, the grievance notice was sent by the appellant on 9th April, 1979 and it actually was served on the respondent corporation on 12th April 1979, three days after the period of limitation had expired. As such the grievance notice was served be yond time and the appellant's grievance petition based upon rich grie vance notice is not maintainable.
3. I am also in agreement with the view taken by the learned Labour Court that it was established in the domestic enquiry that the appellant was absent from his duties without leave and without justification for the whole month of April, 1978. No doubt, the appellant had taken the plea that he was ill but he was not able to substantiate this plea. It appears that the real reason for the absence of the appellant from his duties was not on account of his sickness but because he was reverted from the duties of Chawkidar to that of cooli.
4. There are two other circumstances why grievance petition by the appellant is not maintainable. It is claimed by the appellant that he was promoted as a Chowkidar. It has also been admitted by the respondent Corporation that though the appellant was originally employed as cooli, at the relevant time he was working as a Chawkidar. It has been held by, this Tribunal in the case of Sad Raza Khan v. M/s. Pfizer Laboratories) Ltd. decided on 28th October, 1980 following the decision of this Trib unal in the case of Mohammad Hafeez and Syed Lal Khan that a Chawkidar is not a workman for the purposes of the Standing Orders, as he is not required to do any manual or clerical work and hence is not enti tled to file a grievance petition under clause (3) of Standing Order 12I read with section 25‑A, I. R. O. against the termination of his services. The other ground on which the grievance petition of the appellant must fail is that the K. M. C. is neither an industrial nor a commercial establishment for the purposes of the Standing Orders as held by this Tribunal in the case of Karachi Metropolitan Corporation v. Nawab Bibi and another, decided on 25th November, 1980.
5. I, accordingly, find no merit in this appeal and, therefore, dis miss the came in limine.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer