Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR-314 of 1980/Pb., decided on 16th June, 1982.

-- Ss. 2 (viii) & 25-A-Grievance notice-Served upon an officer falling within definition of "employer" and having control over workman concerned- Valid-WAPDA employee-Employed in Computer Center-Notice served upon General Manager contend ed to be not valid, because his appointing authority was Opera tional Manager-Grievance notice entertained and replied to General Manager being covered by definition of "employer" conten tion, in circumstances, rejected.

1980 P L C 334 ref.

Malik Pervez Akhtar for Appellant.

Khan Muhammad Virk for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 7th June, 1982.

This appeal arises from the decision, dated 3rd April, 1980 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, where by the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed on the sole ground that the grievance notice had been given to the General Manager, whereas the appointing authority was the Operational Manager.

2. The appellant, who was a Key Punch Operator in the Computer Centre of Electric Wing of WAPDA, is alleged to have passed some objectionable remarks about the lady punch operators. He was charge sheeted and as enquiry was held against him in which he was found guilty. His three increments were stopped by way of punishment.

3. Admittedly the grievance notice was given by the appellant to the General Manager who at the time evidence was produced before the lower Court was the head of the Computer Centre. The case of the res pondent is that the appointing authority was the Operational Manager, therefore, the grievance notice should have been served upon him. Firstly no rule was cited on behalf of the respondent before the lower Court. nor before me that the Operational Manager is the appointing authority of the appellant. Even no copy of the appointment order was brought on the record. P. W. 1, however, stated that the appointing authority of the appellant was the Operational Manager, but his statement stood contro verted by the statement of the appellant, who stated that the Operational Manager was not his appointing authority. Secondly, in labour cases w are not concerned with the appointing or dismissing authority, but the relevant authority is the employer, who has control over the workman concerned. The term employer' has been defined in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. According to the definition, not only the person who is the appointing authority but all other officers and Managers who fall within the definition of employer are to be taken as employer. In the present case as mentioned above the grievance notice was served upon the General Manager, who did not raise any objection that he was not the authority concerned, but rather he sent a reply to the grievance notice, if an objection had been raised in the reply that the General Manager was not the concerned authority and in spite of it the appellant had not given grievance notice to the concerned authority, there could be some scope to say that even though objection was raised, yet notice was not given to the proper authority. The General Manager falls within the definition of employer and since he being the head of the Computer Centre had control over the appellant. it therefore, cannot be said that the grie vance notice was improper. No doubt the learned lower Court relied upon 1980 P L C 334 for holding that the grievance notice should be given t the appointing authority, but since there is nothing in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 to the effect that only the appointing authority is the employer, in my opinion a grievance notice served upon an office who falls within the definition of employer and who has control over the workman concerned, does not suffer from any illegality, which may make the grievance petition as incompetent. Of course if notice is served upon an officer who does not fall within the definition of employer, such a notice is not legal. In labour cases we have not to indulge in such technicalities, which hinder the administration of justice, if no party has been prejudi ced. I, therefore, hold that the grievance notice given to the General Manager, who was the head of the Computer Centre was valid and proper. Since the learned trial Judge has not decided the case on merits, nor has given finding in respect of the remaining legal objections, the dispute cannot be finally decided in the present appeal.

4. 1, accordingly, accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, send the case back for decision on merits.

A. E, Appeal accepted. Case remainded.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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