Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 2637 of 1980, decided on 27^thSeptember, 1981.

‑‑‑‑ S. 25‑A ‑ Grievance notice to employer‑‑Employer‑‑No legal requirement that there should be a single employer of an em ployee‑Authority superior to that of dismissing authority may also be an employer depending upon peculiar set‑up of an establish ment‑Workman ousted from service by Branch Manager‑Sending telegram to Managing Director seeking intervention‑Reply from Managing Director that he should contact Branch Manager who was only competent to deal with the case and that the: petition had been forwarded to said Branch Manager for necessary action Grievance notice thereafter submitted to Branch Manager‑Conten tion that telegram addressed to Managing Director be treated as .grievance notice, in circumstances, rejected‑Managing Director, held, though could be treated as Employer but, in circumstances, had not acted as such hence telegram addressed to him could not be treated as grievance notice‑Reckoning limitation by Labour Court from date of grievance notice to Branch Manager in circum stances, up held.

Kh. M. Habibullah and Muhammad Yawar Ali for Petitioners.

Respondent a person.

Date of hearing : 27th September, 1981.

Habib‑ur‑Rehman respondent was employed as a Technical Assis tant by the Forbes Forbes Campbell & Company (Petitioner No. 1) and was posted at Karachi. According to the terms of his employment he was liable to be transferred any where. In 1978 he was transferred to the Branch Office at Lahore. While serving in Lahore his services were terminated on 18th January, 1979 by petitioner No. 4, the Branch Manager at Lahore. He sent a telegram the same day to the Manager at Karachi (petitioner No. 3) asking for re‑instatement. He then sent a telegram on 18th February, 1979 to the Managing Director at Karachi requesting him to intervene and order his re‑instatement. This request was rejected through a telegram sent by the Managing Director on 20th February, 1979. On 27th March, 1979 Habib‑ur‑Rehman respondent sent a letter about his grievances to the Branch Manager at Lahore (petitioner No. 4). Subsequently he made an application to the Labour Court on 25th April, 1979. An objection was taken before the Labour Court that the petition before the Labour Court was time barred. It was contended that the telegram sent to the Managing Director of 18th February, 1979 has to be treated as a grievance notice because the Managing Director at Karachi was an employer in terms of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The Labour Court passed an order on 6th January, 1980 rejecting the contention of the present petitioners. The appeal was dismissed on 2nd March, 1980 by the Labour Appellate Tribunal and the present writ petition is consequence of these two order,

2. It is contended by the learned counsel that it is not necessary that a person should have a single employer. It is conceded by the learned counsel that the Branch Manager at Lahore was an employer but it is actress that so was the Managing Director at Karachi and the effect of the telegram that the respondent sent to the Managing Director at Karachi was the it of a grievances notice. Since it was rejected on 20th February 1979 the be limitation of 60 days would run from that date.

3. There is a tot of force in the arguments of the learned counsel that there is no legal requirement that there should be a single employer in respect of an employee, although in most cases there is only one. In some cases, depending on the peculiar set up of an establishment, an authority superior to that of dismissing authority may also be an emp loyer. The question in the present, case is not whether the Managing Direct was also the employer, but whether he acted as one. The tele gram of; 18th February, 1979 addressed to him seeks his intervention, suggestion that Habib‑ur‑Rehman respondent wanted him to intervene in the excesses allegedly committed by Managing Director's subordinate, the Branch Manager at Lahore. Habib‑ur‑Rehman does not treat the Manag ing Dire .for as the employer. What is still more important is the fact that the Managing from his telegram sent to the respondent on 21st March, 1979, which reads as under:‑

"Reference your telegram dated 15th March, 1979 Please contact r. Sartaj Hussain, Manager Lahore who is only competent to deal with your case. Your petition has been forwarded to him for necessary action. Col Grain."

It is presumably after the receipt of this telegram that three days later the respondent moved a formal grievance notice before the Branch Mana ger at Lahore. Under these circumstances the Labour Courts were justified in holding that the Branch Manager at Lahore was the employer of Habib‑ur‑Rehman and that the grievance notice of 27th March, 1979 was a proper grievance notice.

4. In ‑view of these considerations, the writ petition is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

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.