Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑842 of 1980, decided on 2nd November, 1982.

‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3)‑Limitation for grievance notice and grievance petition ‑ Cannot be ignored despite hardship to petitioner Workers Union demanding particular pay scale instead of that allowed for about 2 years on basis of undertaking of workers Labour Court holding that it was a continuous wrong and cause of action arose every month‑Case, held, not of deduction of pay hence Appellate Tribunal not approving findings of Labour Court‑No application for condonation of delay made‑Grievance petition, in circumstances, held, time‑barred and order of Labour Court accept ing same set aside by Appellate Tribunal.

Mien Farooq Ahmad for Appellants.

Mian Mahmood Hussain for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 25th October, 1982.

In this appeal the decision, dated 26th November, 1980 passed by the learned Labour Court No. 1, Lahore has been challenged whereby the griev ance petition of the respondent brought for 81 workers was accepted and the appellant was directed to fix the pay of the workers in N. P. S. 4.

The facts are simple that the 81 workers were tubewell operators in WAPDA. They were alongwith the Project transferred to the appellant department. The appellant took undertaking from the workers that they may be placed in N. P. S. 2. Their pay was fixed in the said scale though before transfer they were in N. P. S. 4 under WAPDA. The respondent union brought the grievance petition for the said workers. The only point on‑which the grievance petition fails is that it was alongwith the grievance notice hopelessly time‑barred. The scale of the workers was fixed in N. P. S. 2 in 1978 but grievance notice was given and petition was brought in 1980 without any application for condonation of delay. The learned lower Court has held that it was a continuous wrong and thus in every month cause of grievance rises. I regret I cannot endorse this finding. This is not a case of deduction of pays. On the strength of an undertaking given by the workers their pay was fixed in N. P. S. 2. On the date the scale was fixed, the cause of grievance arises to the workers. The order was trot repeated nor could be repeated every month so no question of accusing of causes of grievance every month arises. If any application for he condonation of delay had been moved alongwith the grievance petition giving cogent reasons the question may have been considered but in the absence of the same there can be no ground to treat the grievance notice and the petition as within time. The representative of the respondents has not been able to advance any arguments except repeating, the ground given by the learned trial Judge which I have already observed to be correct. This is true that great hardship has been done to the workers e but the question of limitation cannot be ignored. When law has fixed a procedure and provided period of limitation every one is bound to abide by it, s a result of the observations made above I accept the appeal and setting aside the order of the learned lower Court dismiss petition as time‑barred.

A.E. Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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