Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. GA-767 of 1981, decided on 28^th February, 1982.

---S. 25-A--Grievance petition--Dismissal from service--Grievance petition failed due to non-service of grievance notice--Appeal filed against dismissal of grievance petition also failed--Subsequent belated grievance notice and petition rejected because notice was not given without any loss of further time--Time spent in previous litigation made without service of grievance notice not condoned.

G.A. Pirzada for Appellant.

Date of hearing: 3rd February, 1982.

This appeal arises from the decision dated 9-12-1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.7, Gujranwala, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.

2. The appellant was dismissed from service on 17-4-1979. He had without the service of grievance notice brought grievance petition, which was dismissed on 16-10-1979. The appellant had challenged the order in appeal which was dismissed on 15-6-1980. Thereafter, the appellant served a grievance notice on 14-9-1980 and brought fresh grievance petition on 2-10-1980. In the grievance petition the appellant has mentioned that before bringing the previous grievance petition he had served a grievance notice but this is factually wrong. If he had served the grievance notice, his previous petition would not have been dismissed.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the time spent in the previous litigation made without service of grievance notice should have been condoned by the lower court. I cannot agree with him. Period spent in a wrong court which had no jurisdiction may be condoned but in the present case it cannot be said that in a court which had no jurisdiction, the petition was brought. The defect in reality was that without the service of grievance notice, previous petition was brought. The lower court, therefore, rightly refused to condone the delay. The period of limitation started from 17-4-1979 when the appellant was dismissed but the grievance notice was served on 14-9-1980, which was obviously hopelessly time-barred. Before the lower court, the plea taken in arguments was that due to financial difficulties, grievance notice could not be served in time but before this court the plea taken is quite different. One has not to spend much time for serving grievance notice. The appellant, therefore, could give grievance notice in time. Learned counsel has also said that after the appeal was dismissed by this Tribunal on 15-6-1980, an application for the copy of the order was made, therefore, further time was lost. Getting copy of the order was not necessary because the appellant already knew that his previous application had been dismissed for non-service of grievance notice. This is also incorrect that the copy of the order of the Tribunal in the previous appeal was obtained on 8-9-1980. No doubt the copy of the order passed in the previous appeal and attached with the present appeal was obtained on 8-9-1980 but this is not the first copy. Previous to it also the appellant had obtained the copy of the said order and the date of its collection is 24-6-1980 as is evident from the application for copy dated 24-6-1980 which is attached to the file of the previous appeal. So after the decision of the previous appeal time was lost and grievance notice was not given without any loss of further time. In these circumstances, the lower court was justified in dismissing his second grievance petition for the reason that the grievance notice and the petition were time-barred. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed.

M. I.

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.