Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑62 of 1981, heard on 10th February, 1981.

‑‑‑ S. 25.A‑Limitation‑Grievance petition filed about four and a half months after grievance notice to employer‑‑Held Time‑barred.

---S. 25‑A‑Grievance notice to employer through Advocate‑Does not fulfil requirements of law‑..Proceedings based upon such notice‑Held: Invalid.

PLD 1980 SC 80 rel.

Syed Zamirul Hasan for Appellant.

Date of hearing : 10th February, 1981.

This appeal is directed against a decision of the learned Fifth Labour Court, given on 9th December, 1980, dismissing the appellant's grievance petition on the grounds, firstly, that the grievance petition was filed beyond the period of limitation and, secondly, that no proper grievance notice was given by the appellant to his employer.

2. I have heard Mr. Syed Zamirul Hasan, the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel first contended that the grievance of the appellant was the oral termination of service of the appellant with effect from 26th October, 1979, without holding any enquiry. In respect of this grievance, the learned counsel submitted that the appellant had served a grievance notice, dated 19th November, 1979, on his employer, Messrs Mehran Corporation, the second respondent herein. The receipt of this notice has been admitted by the second respondent. The appel lant was required to file his grievance petition in respect of the alleged termination of his service with effect from 26th October, 1979, within a period of two and half months from 19th November, 1979, the date of service of the grievance notice upon the employer. However, the grievance petition was filed on 29th March, 1979, almost four and half months after the service of the grievance notice. As such, the grievance petition is clearly time barred qua the grievance regarding the termination of the; appellant's services‑with effect from 26th October, 1979.

3. It was next contended by Mr. Syed Zamirul Hasan that there was a development subsequent to the termination of service of the appellant with effect from 26th October, 1979, in that the appellant was offered fresh employment by the second respondent with effect from 16th Novem ber, 1979 but his services were again terminated with effect from 19th November, 1979. He, accordingly, contends that the appellant has an other cause of grievance in respect of the termination of his service for the second time. In respect of this grievance, the appellant had serve a grievance notice upon the employer, on 20th December, 1979. How ever, as this grievance notice was served through an Advocate, the same is not in accordance with the law and the proceedings based on such grievance notice are invalid as held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case reported in P L D 1980 S C 80. Further more, the grievance petition should have been filed within two and half months of the service of this grievance notice, but was filed some twenty‑four days after the period of limitation had expired. As such, the grievance petition based on the second termination of service is also invalid.

4. It was finally contended by Mr. Syed Zamirul Hasan that accor ding to the respondent company the services of the appellant had not been terminated. If that be so, the appellants could approach the respondent‑Corporation for being allowed to perform his duties. This observation, however, should not be construed as a direction to the res pondent‑Corporation to employ the appellant, as no such direction can be made without hearing the said Corporation.

5. For the reasons discussed by me above, I find no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same in limine.

Appeal 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.