Find a Lawyer

Constitutional Petition No, 905 of 1975, decided can 29th April, 1918

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑--

----S. 25‑A‑Grievance notice upon employer‑Limitation‑Grievance petition dismissed by Labour Court on erroneous view that time limit for service of grievance notice was 2 months instead of 3 months from date of grievance‑High Court, in circumstances, accepting constitutional petition, setting aside impugned order of Labour Court and directing grievance petition to be decided afresh after notice to parties‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973). Art. 199.

Hamid M. Siddiqui for Petitioner.

S. Raza Abbas Naqvi for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 29th April, 1978.

Briefly stated, the facts forming the background of this petition are that the respondent No. 3 terminated the petitioner's service with it on 13th February, 1974. The petitioner challenged the termination before the Labour Commissioner, in view of the provisions of Essential Services Act being then applicable to the respondent clinic. The Labour Commissioner (appropriate authority), however, refused to entertain the application for the reason that the Notification covering the respondent, clinic under the Essential Services Act was withdrawn in May 1974. The petitioner there upon moved an application under section 25‑A of the 1. R. O. 1969 before the 6th Junior Labour Court challenging his termination of service by the respondent No. 3. The Junior Labour Court, however, dismissed the application by its award dated 11th November, 1974, holding that at the relevant time of arising of the cause of action, the appropriate authority vested with the power of adjudicating on such matters was the Labour Commissioner and not the Labour Court and, therefore, it had no jurisdic tion to entertain the application. The petitioner went in appeal against the award before the 5th Sind Labour Court. In the appeal, the learned Presiding Officer disagreed with the finding of the Junior Labour Court regarding its jurisdiction and held that the application filed by the. peti tioner was maintainable and that the Junior Labour Court had the jurisdic tion to decide the application. He, however, proceeded to dismiss the appeal on the ground that under section 25‑A, the petitioner before moving the Court, was required to serve his employer with a grievance notice with in two months of the termination of his services, and since the petitioner had served the grievance notice beyond the aforesaid period of two months the very application under section 25‑A of the 1. R. O. 1969 filed by him was not maintainable. Hence this petition.

Mr. Hamid M. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that while it was rightly held by the appellate Court that the Junior Labour Court had the jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate on the application filed by the petitioner under section 25‑A of the Ordinance, it fell into grave errors by misinterpreting the law, in holding that the application by the petitioner was not maintainable, inasmuch as, the period prescribed by the law under section 25‑A for giving grievance notice to the employer is 3 months and not 2 months, and since the grievance notice was admittedly served by the petitioner on the respondent within the prescribed period of 3 months of his termination of service, the application was maintainable.

Mr. Raza Abbas Naqvi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, very fairly conceded that under section 25‑A of the 1. R. O. 1969 the period prescribed for serving grievance notice by a worker on the employer was 3 months from the date of cause of action and not 2 months and, therefore, he was not in a position to controvert the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and, as such, he had no objection if the application filed by the petitioner is remanded to the Labour Court for fresh decision.

The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is well founded and has been rightly conceded to by the learned counsel for the respondent. Indeed, section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, prescribed a period of limitation of 3 months, and not two months, for serving the employer with a grievance notice from the date of accrual of cause of action. Admittedly, the service of the petitioner in the instant case was terminated on 13th February, 1974 and grievance notice was served by the petitioner on the respondent on 27th April, 1974, within the prescribed period of 3 months. That being so, the pre‑requisite of making the application under section 25‑A had been duly complied with by the petitioner and, consequently, the application filed by him was maintainable and could not have been legally, dismissed by the Vth Sind Labour Court.

For the aforesaid reasons, I allow this petition, set aside the impugned order whereby the Court held the application of the petitioner to be not maintainable, and, in consequence, direct that the application filed by the' petitioner against his termination of service be decided afresh, according to law, after notice to the parties. In the circumstances of the case I make no order as to costs.

A. E. Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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