Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Appeal No. FD‑277 of 1983, decided on 9th April, 1984.
‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑Grievance notice‑Limitation‑Thirty days‑impugned termination order without notice or knowledge to petitioner work man‑Representation submitted immediately after knowledge about termination order for reconsideration and for setting aside termina tion order‑Representation kept pending by employer‑Grievance notice served more than 30 days thereafter, in. circumstances, held, not time‑barred.
Qazi Muhammad Yasin for Appellant.
Mahboob Alam for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 3rd April, 1984.
The appeal captioned above arises from the decision, dated 3rd May, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer. Punjab Labour ‑ Court No. 4, Faisalabad, directing the re‑instatement of the respondent in service with back benefits.
2. The respondent was a mechanic. He was sanctioned leave for one year for the construction of his house. He availed of the leave with effect from 20th September, 1981. The order of granting leave was with drawn. His services were terminated on 26th October, 1981. When the appellant on 21st November, 1982 applied for further leave for two months on medical grounds he was informed that he had been terminated from service on 26th October, 1981.
3. The grievance petition was accepted ex parte and instead of applying for setting aside the ex parte decision under Order IX, rule 13, C. P. C., the impugned order has been challenged on merits. The respon dent stated in his ex parte statement that he was verbally informed about the termination of his services and that neither any show‑cause notice was given nor enquiry was held before termination. The grievance notice, copy Exh. P‑3, was given on 30th March, 1983. Its postal receipt is Exh. P‑4. Before this the respondent had on 21st November, 1982 applied for the reconsideration of his case and for setting aside the order of termina tion. The photo copy is Exh. P‑1. It was ordered, vide order, dated 14th December, 1982, to be kept pending. So, the grievance notice, dated 30th March, 1983 is not time‑barred. As there is no material on the record to rebut the evidence produced by the respondent, the learned lower Court was justified in directing the re‑instatement of the respondent is service.
4. As result, the appeal on account of having no substance is dismissed.
A. E. Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer