Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. MN‑241 of 1982, heard on 14th April, 1982.

‑‑ Ss. 25‑A, 36 & 38 (3) ‑ Practice and procedure ‑ Delayed grievance petition ‑Condonation of delay‑Unrebutted affidavit in evidence explaining reasons can be considered sufficient for condona tion of delay provided reasons stated therein themselves sufficient to condone delay‑Grievance petition contested as time‑barred Affidavit of petitioner stating that revision petition was submitted to respondent (appellant‑employer) and grievance notice and grievance petition were in time reckoning limitation period from date of rejection of said revision petition‑Copy of said revision petition not produced nor any other proof in support thereof brought on record‑Order of Labour Court condoning delay by relying on unrebutted affidavit of petitioner and accepting grievance petition, in circumstances, set aside by appellate Tribunal and case remanded to Labour Court for redecision after opportunity of evidence to parties on point of limitation.

Gulzar Ahmad Alvi for Appellant.

Ch. Nazir Hussain for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 14th April, 1982.

This appeal arises from the decision, dated 28th February, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan whereby the grievance petition of the respondent for his reinstate ment was accepted.

The respondent was a Running Room Bearer appointed in April, 1976. He was removed from service in October, 1980. He was offered new appointment but he refused to accept it and brought a grievance petition challenging the orders of his dismissal.

The appellant had raised the objection in the written statement that the grievance notice and grievance petition were time‑barred inasmuch as the respondent was removed from service in October, 1980 and grievance notice was given on 19th April, 1981 and petition was brought before the Labour Court on 14th June, 1981. It has also been argued that no appeal was brought by the respondent, therefore, cause of action arose on 26th October, 1980, the date he was terminated. The learned lower Court treated grievance notice and grievance petition within time on the ground that offer of new appointment was given to the respondent on 17th March, 1981. This reason obviously is fallacious. Cause of grievance arose with date of removal from service and not from any subsequent date and appeal has not been brought which either has not been decided or rejected. The father of the respondent had made an application to the appellant but that is not on the record. On the appli cation of the father of the respondent, new appointment was offered. Since these petitions were not made by the petitioner himself and nor are on the record, they cannot be treated as appeals brought by the respon dent. The learned lower Court has relied upon the contents of the appli cation of the respondent for condonation of delay. In the said application, the respondent contended that the decision of his removal was communicated to him on 22nd April, 1981 and grievance notice was given on 19th April, 1981. Copy of grievance notice is Exh. P.'7 which is dated 18th April, 1981 i. e. before the alleged information of the decision on the revision. No copy of the revision has been brought on the file. The learned counsel for the respondent has argued that since affidavit of the respondent was not contradicted and the evidence produced by him was not rebutted, lower Court was justified in holding that grievance petition and grievance notice were within time. In this respect, he has relied upon 1976 S C M R 19. This is true that unrebutted affidavit explaining the reasons which prevented the person from coming to the Court within time may be considered sufficient for the condonation of delay but it is necessary that reasons given should in themselves be sufficient to condone the delay. In the affidavit it was said that the respondent brought a revision but no copy of the revision was placed on the file. Needless say that best possible evidence was to be produced. Since the case of the respondent is that he brought revision it was necessary for him to have brought on record a copy of revision and the receipt under which revision was either delivered personally or postal receipt that it was sent by A registered post. Oral statement is, therefore, not sufficient. According the learned counsel for the appellant, no appeal or revision was received from the respondent and the applications were made by the respondent. Since the case proceeded ex parte against the appellant after the respondent had closed his evidence, therefore, the applications referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent could not be brought on the record. In the circumstances given above, it is necessary that the parties should be given opportunity to produce cogent evidence on the whole case includ ing point of limitation. If the respondent brought any revision and happens to prove this fact, his grievance notice may be within time but if no revision was brought by him and the applications which were received by the appellant were given by the father of the respondent, question arised whether they can be treated as appeal or revision made by the respondent. Unless the documents with regard to appeal or revision are brought on the file, it is not possible to finally decide whether the grievance notice and grievance petition were in time.

In view of the above observations, I accept the appeal and set aside the impugned order with the remarks that opportunity for providing evidence be given to lead evidence on the whole case including the point of limitation and the case be decided afresh on the evidence produced by the parties.

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.