Find a Lawyer

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑

‑‑‑ Ss. 25‑A and. 38‑Grievance petition‑No specific prayer made in grievance petition but accompanied by grievance notice demand ing re‑instatement in service‑Grievance petition, held, should be read with grievance notice to employer‑Grievance of petitioner being against termination of service and grievance notice containing demands for re‑instatement‑Grievance petition, in circumstances, held, maintainable and setting aside order of Labour Court case remanded for re‑bearing on merits.

Ch. M. Maarlf for Appellant.

Muhammad Khursheed Ahmed Siddiqui for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 31st May, 1982.

DECISION

The appeal is directed against the following brief Order of the learned First Labour Curt made on 17th April. 1982, upon the grievance petition of the appellant complaining against, his alleged unlawful termination of service by the respondent establishment :‑

"ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the respondent. The counsel for the applicant did not submit his arguments.

Concluding para of the petition clearly indicates that no specific prayer is made by the applicant. As such the present petition is hereby dismissed as legally not maintainable.

Sd/‑ Presiding Officer.

Sind Labour Court No. First Karachi."

2. Mr. Muhammad Khursheed Siddiqui, the learned counsel for the respondent, was unable to satisfy me under what provision of law the said order has been passed. The requirements for the filing of a grievance petition are the service of the grievance notice by the workman concerned upon his employer, within the prescribed period, and the filing of the grievance petition within the specified time. No special form is prescribed for such a grievance petition. All that subsection 4 of section 25‑A, I. R. O., lays down is that if an aggrieved workman is not communicated the decision of the employer within fifteen days of the workman serving the grievance notice upon the employer, or the workman is dissatisfied with decision of the employer, the matter may be taken to the Labour Court by the workman concerned or through the C. B. A. In the instant case, the workman has himself taken the matter to the Latour Court. A bare perusal of the appellant's grievance petition shows that he is aggrieved by the termination of his services by the respondent establish ment and he has characterised such termination as "a revengeful measure" on the part of the respondent establishment. No doubt there is no specific prayer in the grievance petition, but it is accompanied by the grievance notice, dated 23rd December, 1981, in which the appellant has demanded that he should be re‑instated in service with full back benefits. The grievance petition, thus, should have been read alongwith this grievance notice.

3. As the grievance of the appellant clearly was against the termina tion of his services and in his grievance notice he has demanded re‑instatement in service with full back benefits the grievance petition was clearly maintainable and the order of the learned Labour Court, dated l7th April, 1982, cannot be maintained.

4. I would, accordingly, set aside the impugned order of the learned Labour Court and remand the case to it for re‑hearing on merits. Needless to add that it would be upon to the learned Labour Court to dismiss the grievance petition of the appellant either on merits or on any technical grounds raised by the respondent establishment provided that there is merit in those grounds and further after an opportunity is given to hot sides to lead evidence in regard to them.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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