Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. SL-449 of 1981, decided on 8th March, 1982.

---S.25-A--Grievance petition for reinstatement in service--Dismissed by Labour Court as barred by time and held not maintainable without exhausting remedy of departmental appeal--Tribunal upheld dismissal on point of limitation but declined to endorse view that without going in departmental appeal appellant could not make grievance petition.

Muhammad Ikram for Appellant.

Date of hearing: 28th February, 1982.

This appeal arises from the decision dated 7-7-1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.8, Bahawalpur whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement in service was dismissed for the reasons, firstly that it was time-barred and secondly that without exhausting the remedy of departmental appeal it was not maintainable.

2. The appellant was dismissed vide order-dated 29-10-1979 under the charge of misappropriation of bank's money when he was employed as an accountant. The order of dismissal was served upon him on 8-11-1979. He brought a civil suit on 11-11-1979 challenging the order of dismissal. The suit was dismissed for want of jurisdiction on 15-6-1980. Copy of the judgment was applied for on 16-6-1980. Copy was delivered on 15-7-1980. On 20-2-1981 he served a grievance notice and on 30-4-1981 brought grievance petition. He is alleged to have received fraction of leg on 25-6-1980. He is alleged to have remained under the treatment upto 31-1-1981. During the said period he is alleged to have been arrested and bailed on 18-2-1981.

3. There is no proof on the file that actually his leg was got fractured and that he was arrested and bailed out on 18-2-1981. No copy of bail order and no medical certificate has been produced. The suit was dismissed on 15-6-1980. There was no need to get copy for going to the Labour Court. Even copy was obtained on 15-7-1980 and thereafter no satisfactory explanation for the delay upto 20-2-1981 when grievance notice was given. Even no affidavit has been filed in support of the application given under section 5 of the Limitation Act for they condonation of delay. In these circumstances, the learned lower court could not do anything else but to dismiss the petition as time barred.

4. However, the view of the learned Presiding Officer that without going in departmental appeal the appellant could not make the grievance petition cannot be endorsed, because only a right of appeal has been given by the Wage Commission Award, but it does not say that without going in appeal, one cannot go to the Labour Court direct.

5. As a result of the observations made above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it in limine.

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.