Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑787 of 1980, decided on 1^stDecember, 1980.

‑‑ S. 72 read with Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 25‑A ‑ Termination of service ‑‑‑ Services of an employee terminated under S. 72 of Ordinance X of 1965‑Labour Court, in exercise of powers under S. 25‑A of Ordinance XXIII of 1969, held, cannot redress grievances where grievance petition and notice hopelessly time‑barred.

Choudhry M. Maarif for Appellant.

The appellant, who was dismissed from service with effect from 7^th May, 1978, while he is said to have been under treatment in the Social Security Institution, challenged the dismissal orders before the learned Labour Court on the ground that the dismissal orders ‑were in violation of section 72 of the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965. The learned Labour Court has dismissed the appellant's petition on the ground that it was not maintainable as it had been filed much beyond the period of limitation. The appellant has, accordingly come up in appeal against the said decision.

2. Subsection (I) of section 25‑A, I.R.O., makes the maintainability and the filing of a grievance petition subject to the service of a grievance notice upon the employer within 3 months of the date on which cause of such grievance occurs. In the instant case, the services of the appellant were terminated, as already stated, on 7th May, 1978. Even if the appellant was not immediately made aware of or was not served with the order of his dismissal, there is ample evidence on record to show that he was fully aware soon thereafter that he had been dismissed from service by the respondent establishment. According to the appellant himself, he had reported for duty at the respondent establishment on 24th July, 1978, but he was not taken on duty. The appellant thus must have known at that time that his services had beer terminated by the respondent establishment. At any rate, his grievance arose on his being refused by the respondent establishment to perform his duties. Again, in the month of December, 1978, the appellant submitted a petition to the Chief Martial Law Administrator, a copy whereof was produced by him as Exh. A‑1, before the learned Labour Court. In that application, the appellant has admitted that upon discharge from the hospital, he went to the respondent establish ment, but he was not allowed to perform his duties and was told that he had been dismissed from service. He has further admitted in the said application that he had been given in writing by the respondent establish ment that he had been dismissed from service. The appellant has also admitted to having received a copy of the reply submitted by the respon dent establishment to the Labour Directorate in connection with a petition submitted by the appellant to the Chief Martial Law Adminis trator. A copy of the said reply was produced before the learned Labour Court as Exh. R/12o In the said reply, the respondent establishment has categorically stated that the appellant was dismissed from service for absence from duties for more than 10 days. Although, the appellant was fully aware of the orders of dismissal in 1978, it was as late as on 29th March, 1980, that he served a grievance notice upon the respondent establishment. The notice thus is hopelessly time‑barred. One may have sympathy with the appellant whose services have been terminated contravention of section 72 of the Provincial Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965, but the Labour Courts, in the exercise of their powers A under section 25‑A, I.R.O., cannot redress the grievance of the appellant. in view of the fact that the appellant's grievance petition and notice are hopelessly time‑barred. Perhaps the remedy of the appellant, would to approach the Commissioner, Social Security, under section 67 of the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, for the prosecution of the respondent establishment under section 66 of the said Ordinance.

3. For the reasons stated by me above, I would dismiss this appeal to limine.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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