Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑614 of 1981, heard on 3rd December, 1981.

‑‑ S. 25‑A (4). Proviso‑Grievance petition‑Limitation ‑Reply to grievance petition received within period specified in subsection (2) or (3)‑Grievance petition to be filed within two months from date of receipt of reply ‑No reply to grievance notice received within prescribed period aggrieved workman has for filing grievance petition a total period of 2 months or 2 months depending upon provisions of subsections (2) and (3) from date of service of notice.

Prince Glass Works Ltd. v. Syed Jafar and 9 others 1980 P L C 373 and Soofi Abdul Rehman v. Karachi Shipyard & Engineering Works Ltd. 1981 P L C 621 ref.

Abdul Muqtadir Khan for Appellant.

Date of hearing : 3rd December, 1981.

This appeal is directed against the decision of the Learned Vth Labour Court, given on 5th October, 1981, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant, against the alleged wrongful termination of his services by the respondent company, The grievance petition was dismissed on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed in sub‑sections (2), (3) and (4) of section 25‑A, I. R. O.

2. It was contended by Mr. Abdul Muqtadir Khan, the learned counsel for the appellant that the grievance petition was in time as it was filed within 2 months of the receipt by the appellant of the reply to the grievance notice which he had served upon the respondent‑Company. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the proviso to subsection (4) of section 25‑A, I. R. O. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel, it would be appropriate to set down in extenso subsection (4) of section 25‑A, including its proviso. The said subsection with its proviso reads as follows:‑

"(4) If the employer fails to communicate a decision within the period specified in subsection (2), or as the case may be subsection (3), or, if the worker is dissatisfied with such decision, the worker or shop steward may take the matter to his collective bargaining agent or the Labour Court, or, as the case may be, the collec tive bargaining agent may take the matter to the Labour Court, and where the matter is taken to the Labour Court it shall give a decision within seven days from the date of the matter being brought before it as if such matter were in an industrial dispute ; provided that a worker who desires to so take the matter to the Labour Court shall do so within a period of two months from the date of the communication of the employer or, as the case may be, from the expiry of the period mentioned in subsection (2) or subsection (3), as the case may be."

It will be seen that the substantive part of subsection (4) provides that. if the employer fails to communicate his decision within the period specified in subsection (2) or subsection (3), or if the worker is dissatisfied with such decision, the worker has a right to take the matter to the Labour Court, either directly or through his shop steward or col lective bargaining agent. The proviso prescribes the period within which the grievance petition is to be filed. It deals with 2 situations. The first is where no reply is received from the employer to the grievance notice within the period prescribed in subsection (2) or subsection (3). In that case the grievance petition can be filed in the Labour Court within a period of 2 months and 15 days or 2 months and 7 days, as the case may be from the service of the grievance notice upon the employer. In case the reply is received to the grievance notice within the period specified in subsection (2)‑or subsection (3), the grievance petition is to be filed within 2 months of the receipt of such reply, There is still a third contingency where the employer sends the reply to the grievance notice ' after the expiry of the period specified in subsection (2) or sub section (3). In that case, in my view, it is not available to the aggrieved workman to file his grievance petition after the expiry of 2 months or 2 months 7 days from the date of service by him of the grievance notice upon the employer as otherwise the period for filing the grievance petition would have to be greatly extended for an indefinite period depending upon the whim of the employer as to when he wishes or decide to make a reply to the grievance notice of the aggrieved workman. This, obviously, cannot be the intention of the Legislature. This position was realised by Mr. Abdul Muqtadir Khan, and he accordingly urged that it was not his contention that in all cases the aggrieved workman could file his grievance petition within 2 months of the receipt of the reply to his grievance notice from the employer, but it was only in those cases where, the grievance petition was filed within a total period of 5 or 5 months that the grievance petition would be maintainable, though the grievance petition may have been filed more than 2 months after the expiry of the period of service of the grievance notice upon the employer. His contention, in other words, was that if the aggrieved workmen serves a grievance notice upon his employer on the very day that the grievance arises and the employer takes 4 months to communicate his reply to the workman, the workman would still have 1 months period from the receipt of reply to file his grievance petition. I regret that I see no force in his contention. The proviso makes no reference to the total period of 5 months or 5 months. As already pointed out, I interpret the proviso that if the reply is received from the employer by the aggrieved workman within the period prescribed in subsection (2) or subsection (3), the aggrieved workman has 2 months from the date of receipt of reply to file his grievance petition, but if no reply from the employer is received within the above period, then the aggrieved work man has a total period of 2 months or 2 months depending upon whether his case is covered by subsection (2) or subsection (3) from the date of service of the notice upon the employer to prefer his grievance petition. I am fortified in my view by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Prince Glass Works Ltd. v. Syed Jafar and 9 others (1980 P L C 373) Similar view was expressed by me in the case of Soofi Abdul Rehman v. Karachi Shipyard & Engineering Works Ltd. (1981 P L C 621).

3. In the instant case it is an admitted position that the services of the appellant were terminated on 1st September, 1980. The grievance notice was served by the appellant on the employer on 27th November, 1980, but the grievance petition was presented by the appellant before the learned Labour Court on 1st March, 1981, much beyond the period of 2 months of the service of the grievance notice by the appellant upon the respondents.

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