Find a Lawyer

Appeals Nos. LHR‑219 and 220 of 1981, heard on 13th June, 1982.

‑ S. 25‑A‑ Grievance notice‑ Limitation‑ To start from date ‑cause of grievance came to notice of employer‑Workman aggrieved of termination of service‑Termination order not served‑Workman, in circumstances, held, deemed to have come to know about termination of service on date of grievance notice.

Ch. Anwar Ali for Appellants.

Malik A. Rashid for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 13th June, 1982.

The two appeals captioned above arise from the decision, dated 16^th April, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, whereby the grievance petitions of the appellants were dismissed as barred by limitation. As the two appeals arise from the same a decision, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.

2. The facts are that the appellants were employed on work‑charged basis and when their work was finished, they used to be terminated and then re‑employed whenever their services were again required. In the year 1979, their services were terminated and again they were re employed and there is no dispute between the parties in that respect. The dispute in about the termination of the services of the appellants made in 1980. The case of the appellants is that their services were never termi nated but they were paid wages upto 31st May, 1980 and were not paid wages thereafter. On the other hand, the case of the respondent is that in May, 1980 the services of the appellants were terminated as the work had finished and they were paid all their dues. The order of termination is not on the record. In Exh. D‑7 reference is made to that order, but the learned trial Judge has held that from the date of Exh. D‑7 the grievance notice served by the appellants on the respondent on 3rd March, 1981 were time‑barred. The period of limitation would start from the date on which the termination, if any, was brought to the knowledge of the appellants, but there is no evidence to that effect on the record. In Exh. D‑7 it is not mentioned that the orders of termination referred to in the said document were either served or brought to the knowledge of the appellants. For ready reference Exh. D‑7 is reproduced as below :‑

"The office order under reference was received on 10th May, 1980. In this office order it has been mentioned that Monitoring Research Division should band over all the Plozomotors installed uptil this date to a representative of Director, Hydrologic Monitoring Directorate: From this it is evident that Project Director Tubewell Rehabilitation Research is unaware that we have stores too in the field. So is requested to please inform that to whom the stores should be handed over. Secondly, he has terminated the services of the entire work‑charged establishment from 10th May, 1980 through his office order. Since the services of the Chowkidar have been terminated, Project Director, Tubewell Rehabilitation Research Directorate is requested to please inform who will be responsible for loss of stores after the termination of store chowkidars. Of course none of this Division shall be responsible. It is understood that Project Director, Tubewell Rehabilitation Research Directorate has born this responsibility."

The above Exh. D‑7 is a letter sent by Muhammad Ibrahim Ch. Senior Engineer, Monitoring Research Division, WAPDA, Lahore addres sed to the Project Director, Tubewell Rehabilitation Research Directorate, WAPDA, Lahore. But it is not mentioned in Exh. D‑7 that the orders of termination of the services of the work‑charged employees were duly conveyed to the employees concerned and if so on what date. Besides this document there is no other material on the record to the effect that ever any order of termination in the month of May, 1980 was passed, but since it does not stand proved that the orders of termination were conveyed to the appellants, no time of limitation started running and it would be deemed that from the date on which the relevance notices were given, the appellants came to know of the orders of termination. So this is wrong that the grievance notices, dated 2nd March, 1981 were time‑barred. The mere fact that the wages were paid up to 31st May, 1980 would not be sufficient to say that the orders of termination had been conveyed to the appellants. Abdul Shakoor (P. W. 1) stated that he passed an order in the beginning of May, 1980 that the services of the appellants would be terminated. But he did not say that the order had been conveyed to the appellants. The said witness has made reference to final settlement Exh. D‑6 but unless this document had been got signed by the appellants it could not bind them, nor could show that the factum of the termination of services had come to their knowledge on the date of the settlement of dues. Not to speak of the signatures of the appel lants even their names are not given to this document. It, therefore, cannot be said that this final settlement Exh. D‑6 in any manner pertaining to the appellants. On Exh. D‑4 the name of Muhammad Rafiq son of Muhammad Munir can be read but the signatures or thumb‑impression do not appear. On Exh. D‑5 the name of Muhammad Saleem is written but again his signatures or thumb impressions do not appear. It is thus apparent that the termination was not proved to have been brought to their knowledge. I, therefore, hold that the grievance notice and the grievance petitions were not time‑barred.

3. The learned trial Judge has not decided the cases on1merits and dismissed the petitions only on the ground that they were time‑barred, therefore, the dispute cannot be finally decided in appeal. I, accordingly, accept both the appeals and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, send the cases back to the learned lower Court for de cision on merits.

A. E.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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