Find a Lawyer

Appeal No.12 of 1985, decided on 25th May, 1985.

‑‑‑S.25‑A (i)‑‑Grievance notice‑‑Service of‑‑Mandatory‑‑Word "may" used in S.25‑AM does not make requirement of grievance notice as optional or permissive‑‑Grievance petition without service of valid grievance notice not maintainable.

Pakistan National Centre through its Chairman v. Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court P L D 1976 Lah. 1085; Karachi Development Authority v. Presiding Officer II Sind Labour Court, Karachi and 2 others P L D 1975 Kar. 716 and Karachi Shipyards and Engineering Works Karachi v. II Sind Labour Court P L D 1975 Kar. 719 rel.

Dr. Abdur Rehman Brahvi and S.M. Nazir Durrani for Appellant.

Amirul Mulk Mengal, A.‑G. for Respondents.

Dates of hearing: 8th and 12th May, 1985.

This appeal is directed against the orders passed by the Presiding Officer III Labour Court on 17‑2‑1985 whereby the application No.57 of 1984 filed by Haji Rahim Bakhsh the appellant herein was dismissed.

The appellant Haji Rahim Bakhsh was appointed as Pipe Fitter on 1‑2‑1950 on work charge basis in the Irrigation Department, Government of Baluchistan but was regularised on 1‑7‑1972 and was retired from service on 17‑3‑1981 after being declared invalid and incapacitated for further service. On 24‑8‑1982 a sum of Rs.5,573 only representing the claim for gratuity was paid. Instead of taking proper legal steps for the grant and payment of pensionary benefits which according to him he was entitled to, Haji Rahim Bakhsh moved application to the Martial Law Authorities and even the President of Pakistan but without any success. A grievance notice, dated 12‑8‑1984 was issued by him which was replied on 30‑8‑1984 by the respondent repudiating the claim. The application under section 25‑A, I.R.O. was, therefore, filed before the Presiding Officer III Labour Court Quetta and the same has been dismissed having held it as time barred. The Labour Court also pointed out that no application for condonation of delay in giving the notice of grievance and filing of application under section 25‑A, I.R.O. was made.

The admitted position is that the claim of the appellant was finally determined and the funds found payable to him as per stand taken by the respondent Department was paid on 24‑8‑1982. The stand of the Department was that the service of the appellant was bifurcated into two portions (1) work charge upto 1‑7‑1972 which is not counted towards pension and (H) regular and the payment has been made as per Rules admissible to him. The learned Presiding Officer was of the view that the services of the appellant were regularised w.e.f.1‑7‑1972 and this was within the powers of the respondent. This order dated 1‑7‑1972 was never challenged. The less payment if any made to the appellant on 24‑8‑1982 could give him a cause of grievance for which the intimation to the employer was legally required as laid down in section 25‑A(1) of the I.R.O. The relevant provision reads:‑

"25‑A Redress of individual grievances:‑,

(1) A worker may bring his grievance in respect of any right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law or any award or settlement for the tine being in force to the notice of his employer in writing, either himself or through his Shop Steward or (Collective Bargaining Agent), within three months of the day on which cause of such grievance arises.

(2) Where a worker himself brings his grievance to the notice of the employer, the employer shall within fifteen days of the grievance being brought to his notice, communicate his decision in writing to the worker.

(3) If the employer fails to communicate a decision within the period specified in subsection (2) or, as the case may be, subsection (3) or if the worker is dissatisfied with such decision, the worker or Shop Steward may take the matter to his (Collective Bargaining Agent) or the Labour Court or, as the case may be, the Collective Bargaining Agent may take the matter to the Labour Court and where the matter is taken to the Labour Court it shall give a decision within seven days from the date of the matter being brought before it as if such matter were in an industrial dispute."

The learned counsel when confronted with the situation that his client has not brought his grievance within the time specified in section 25‑A(1), I.R.O., he took up the stand that no such intimation/ notice was required and the provision laid in that behalf is only directory and not mandatory. The contention has not impressed me for the reason that first representation is to be considered grievance notice for purpose of limitation. The grievance notice to the employer is a pre‑condition and the application in the Labour Court has to be filed within two months of the reply of employer to the grievance notice or the failure of the employer to reply to such notice and this grievance notice itself must be served upon the employer within three months of the grievance. Thus the grievance application under section 25‑A, I.R.O. must be filed within five and a half months of the grievance. The word "may" is used in context of bringing his grievance to the notice of the employer himself or through his Shop Steward or Collective Bargaining Agent but it does not make the notice as optional or permissive, therefore, the argument of the learned counsel that the grievance notice under section 25‑A(1) is not mandatory does not stand to reason. In Pakistan National Centre through its Chairman v. Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court P L D 1976 Lah. 1085 it has been held that grievance notice is a prerequisite to invoke the jurisdiction of Labour Court and it was pointed out in Karachi Development Authority v. Presiding Officer II Sind Labour Court, Karachi and 2 others P L D 1975 Kar. 716 that the worker/employee was bound to give all particulars and fulfill conditions precedent for presentation of application and application not fulfilling conditions prescribed under section 25‑A clutched the jurisdiction not given by law and the same view also prevailed in Karachi Shipyards and Engineering Works Karachi v. II Sind Labour Court P L D 1975 Kar. 719. The construction of statute which is plain, certain and free from any ambiguity has seldom been regarded as inflexible.

On this view of the matter the order of the learned Presiding Officer is not open to any exception. On this point the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

A . E.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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