Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. SC‑188 of 1982/Pb., decided on 17th April, 1983.

‑ S. 25‑A‑Grievance notice to employer‑Provisions mandatory‑ Departmental rules providing one appeal and same rejected‑Grievance notice not served within prescribed limitation period from date of communication of order rejecting appeal‑Another appeal made to departmental authority‑Same if treated as grievance notice grievance petition becoming time barred‑Grievance petition, in circumstances, held, rightly dismissed as not competent.

Munawar Ahmad Javed for Appellant.

A. R. Sheikh for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 10th April, 1983.

This appeal calls in question the decision dated 25th February, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement in service was dismissed. The respondent bank has brought cross objections, which are being disposed of along-with the appeal.

2. The appellant was a messenger. The allegations against him were that he lodged a false complaint against the Manager and an officer of the bank, that he asked two account holders to close their accounts with the bank and that he remained absent without leave from 30th December, 1980 .to 2nd January, 1981 and 4th January, 1981 to 27th January, 1981. He was charge‑sheeted and finding his reply to the charge‑sheet as unsatisfactory, an enquiry was held, which culminated in his dismissal from service.

3. 'It has been argued that the charges were not established in the enquiry. An account holder to whom the appellant is alleged to have suggested to close his accounts from the bank said that to other persons the appellant had asked him to .close the accounts from the bank. One witness belonging to Rana Hadware Store said that the appellant enquired from him would he on his asking close his account from the Habib Bank This was an indirect way of suggesting that the accounts be closed. So this is wrong that on charge No. 1 there was no evidence on the record. So far as making of complaints against the Manager and an officer is concerned, from the enquiry made on the complaint it appears that the allegations made against the Manager and the officer were not established. So far as absence is concerned from 8th January, 1981 to 27th January, 1981 he is marked as absent in the register. The other absence is, however, doubtful.

4. The difficulty is that the grievance notice was time barred. Two departmental appeals were lodged, when as there is one right of only one appeal. From the decision of the first appeal the grievance notice is time‑barred. The first appeal was rejected and intimation was given on 9th June, 1981. Grievance notice was given on 4th October, 1981 and thus was time‑barred. The second appeal is taken to be a grievance notice, then the grievance petition becomes time‑barred. Second appeal was rejected and intimation was conveyed on 11th August, 1981 (Exh. P. 12) and grievance petition was lodged on 31st October, 1981. So was time‑barred. The provisions of section 25‑A with regard to grievance notice are mandatory and if the said notice is invalid, the very grievance petition is not competent. The appellant has, therefore, no case and his petition was rightly dismissed.

5. As upshot of the observations made above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it. Cross objections have not been argued, meaning that they have not been pressed, so they too are dismissed.

A. H. Appeal dismissed,

Find a Lawyer Near You

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