Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑34 of 1983, heard on 29th March, 1983.

(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑

‑‑--S. 25‑A‑Grievance notice and. petition‑Limitation‑ Rules of establishment providing remedy by way of appeal‑Appeal presented but not replied to‑Failure of competent authority in deciding appeal within reasonable time, held, would give double cause of grievance to workman, first against original impugned order and second failure of appellate authority to pass order on appeal‑Grievance notice served about 51 months after preferring appeal, held, not b0ated Petition filed after little more than one month of service of grievance notice, further held, could not be said as time‑barred.

(b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)----

--‑‑S. 25‑A‑Grievance notice‑Railway employee‑Dismissed from service by Divisional Superintendent but order issued over signature of Divisional Personnel Officer‑Grievance notice served upon Divisional Personnel Officer, in circumstances, held, quite valid and objection that same was not valid as not having been addressed to authority competent to re‑instate i. e. Divisional Superintendent, held, not tenable.

M. M. Jeelani for Appellant.

A. T. Mehmood for Respondent.

The appellant, who was employed as a Fire Driver in the Pakistan Railways, the respondent herein, was charge‑sheeted on 7th August, 1981, and the misconduct alleged against him was that he had taken out the Fire truck without proper check and was working the truck in spite of the fact that it was giving abnormal noise with the result that the gear‑box of the Fire truck was seriously damaged due to his negligence. The appellant submitted an explanation to the show‑cause notice but the same was not found satisfactory and accordingly vide, order, dated 22nd August, 1981, he was dismissed from service on the said charge. The appellant challenged the orders of his dismissal through a grievance petition before the learned Vth Labour Court which has dismissed the same as not maintainable, by its decision, given on 23rd December, 1982. The grounds which prevailed with the learned Labour Court in dismissing the grievance petition are, firstly, that the grievance notice is hopelessly time‑barred, and secondly, that the grievance notice has not been served on the proper party, namely, the Divisional Superintendent, who was competent to redress his grievance and re‑instate him in service. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant has come up in appeal to this Tribunal.

2. I have heard Mr. M. M. Jeelani, the learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. A. T. Mehmood, who appeared for the respondent.

3. Now, as regards the first ground on which the learned Labour Court has dismissed the appellant's grievance petition, it may be pointed out that the services of the appellant were terminated on 22nd August, 1981, vide the notice of penalty served upon him. It is an admitted position that the appellant filed an appeal to the competent authority on 5th September, 1981. It is not disputed that provisions for an appeal in such cases exist in the Rules applicable to the appellant. It was, therefore, the responsibility of the appellate authority to decide the appeal of the appellant and communicate its decision thereon to the appellant. This was not done. The failure of the competent authority to decide the appeal within a reasonable time gave a double cause of grievance to the appellant, first, against the original dismissal of service and second, the failure to pass orders on his appeal against such dismissal. The appellant was entitled to wait for a reasonable time for a decision on his appeal before serving the employer with a grievance notice and pre ferring a grievance petition. Similar view has been expressed by this Tribunal in the cases of National Bank of Pakistan v. Idrees Ahmed Khan, decided on 18th May, 1982, and S. Asghar Imam v. Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd., decided on 19th December, 1.932. It would appear that these decisions have not come to the notice of the learned Labour Court. Relying upon the aforesaid decisions, I would hold than the grievance notice given by the appellant on 24th February, 1982, some 5 months after preferring his appeal, is not belated and is within time. Similarly the grievance petition which was filed on 29th March, 1982, after a little more than one month of the service of the grievance notice, is in time. The Railway authorities cannot take advantage of their own failure to dispose of the departmental appeal of the appellant and on that basis claim that the grievance petition of the appellant or the grievance notice given by him are not in time and are belated. The respondents in paragraph 7 of their reply statement submitted on 25th September, 1982 have conceded that the appeal preferred by the appellant is still pending.

4. Coming to the second point on which the learned Labour Court has dismissed the appellant's grievance petition, namely, that the grievance notice was not served upon the authority competent to redress the appellant's grievance to re‑instate him in service, it may be pointed out that the very order of dismissal has been issued and signed by the Divisional Personnel Officer, who is stated to be the Staff Officer of the Divisional Superintendent and works for him and on his behalf. Further more, it is the Divisional Personnel Officer who deals with the matters pertaining to the personnel, their appointments, dismissals and appeals etc. As such the grievance notice was rightly served upon him. Further more, even if the Divisional Personnel Officer be considered not to be the officer competent to re‑instate the appellant in service, the grievance notice was served on the Pakistan Railways through Divisional Personnel Office and since the correct party is the Pakistan Railways and the Divisional Officer is expected to submit the papers to the Divisional Superintendent the grievance notice appears to have been addressed to the correct party.

5. For the reasons discussed by me above, 1 would set aside the impugned decision of the learned Labour Court and would remand the case to it for decision on merits. As the case has been remanded to the learned Labour Court. Mr. A. T. Mahmood, the learned counsel for the respondents very fairly conceded that the appellant would not be disturbed from his Quarter during the pendency of the matter before the learned Labour Court.'

A.E. Case remanded

Find a Lawyer Near You

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