Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 Section 25A & 38 Complaint Notice and Petitioner Appeal Department's Appeal Notice Remaining Start Date From Completion Date Rejected Appeal rejected by Complaints received by the High Court of Labor Countdown was prevented by rejecting the request. Not from the date of the order of dismissal of the appeal and from the date of communication to the applicant as per the labor court's order and the application period, in which case, the appellate tribunal set aside and the case was settled on merit. Received remand for judgment.
Appeal No. LHR‑182 of 1981, decided on 20th December, 1982.
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑---
---‑ Ss. 25‑A & 38 ‑ Grievance notice and petition ‑Limitation to start from date of cause of grievance coming to notice of petitioner- Departmental appeal rejected Rejection intimation conveyed to peti tioner subsequently through his immediate superior‑Labour Court rejecting grievance petition as time‑barred counting limitation from date of order of rejection of appeal and not from date of its communi cation to petitioner according to which notice and petition were within limitation period‑ Order of Labour Court, in circumstances, set aside by Appellate Tribunal and case remanded for decision on merits.
Khalid Farooq for Appellant.
Mian Mohammad Yasin for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 13th. December, 1982.
JUDGEMENT This appeal arises from the decision dated 17th of March, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 1, Lahore whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for setting aside order of stopping of increments for two years was dismissed as time‑barred without giving deci sion on the facts of the case. .
The appellant was a Gunman and on the allegation that he had without permission joined partnership business with Khurashid Zaidi, his increments for two years were stopped on non‑recurring basis. The order of stopping of increments was passed on 17th October, 1979. The appellant challenged the said order in departmental appeal on 19th October, 1979. The appeal was rejected on 26th November, 1979, but the factum of rejection of the appeal was conveyed to the appellant vide order Annexure‑B dated 28th, of September, 1980. The grievance notice and grievance petition are within time from 28th of September, 1980 but the learned Lower Court has counted the period of limitation from 26th November, 1979 the date on which the appeal was rejected. There is no evidence on the record that the order of rejection of appeal dated 26th November, 1979 was conveyed to the appellant earlier than 28th of September, 1980. The order dated 26th November, 1979 shows that its copy was not endorsed to the appellant; rather the authority to whom the letter dated 26th November, 1979 was addressed was asked to convey the fact of the rejection of the appeal to the appellant. The cause of grievance arises to the appellant on the date on which the fact of the rejection of the appeal was conveyed to him and since from that date which is 28th September, 1980, the grievance notice was within time, and the learned Lower Court wrongly held that the petition was time‑barred. Since the learned Lower Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, the real dispute between the parties cannot be resolved finally in this appeal. I accordingly accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned order of the learned Lower Court remand the case for decision on merits.
