Find a Lawyer

Appeal No.

QSA-545-of 1983, decided on 22nd January, 1984.

---S.25-A--Workman--Grievance notice, filing of--Competency--Held, only one valid notice is competent.

---S.25-A--Grievance notice, filing of--Condonation of delay-- Appellant after service of first grievance notice, under a wrong advice went to a wrong forum--Order of dismissal not challenged in petition filed before such forum and no application for condonation of delay made before that Court-- Condonation of delay declined in circumstances.

Ch. Ghulam Qadir Cheema for Appellant.

Date of hearing: 18th January, 1984.

The appeal captioned above arises from the decision dated 27-10-1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.3, Lahore at Ferozewala dismissing the petition of the appellant as being time-barred.

2. Three grievance notices were given by the appellant, whereas according to section 25-A, only one valid grievance notice is to be/A given. The first notice Exh. R-11 was served on 6-4-1981. Reply to his notice Exh. P-12 is, dated 19-4-1981. Grievance petition could be brought upto 19-6-1981 but it was presented on 15-8-1981. Second grievance notice was given on 15-6-1981. Still a third grievance notice is proved to be given by the appellant on 18-8-1981. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that after the service of the first grievance notice, the appellant under a wrong advice went to a wrong forum i.e. the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, so the said period is to be excluded. The copy of the petition Exh. R.J. made to the. Authority under the Payment of Wages Act shows that the order of dismissal was not challenged and only claimed wages with ten times compensation. So, this is, wrong that the dismissal was challenged in a wrong forum bona fide. The appellant was sent dismissal order by registered post on 7-4-1981 as mentioned in the reply to the first grievance notice. The appellant did not falsify this fact in his petition. Since the order of dismissal had been served upon him well before he gave the grievance notice and he did not come to know of it for the first time by the reply to his first notice, there was no occasion to give any other grievance notice. From the date of the reply to the first notice, the petition was time-barred. No application for condonation of delay was made to the learned lower Court.

3. As a result, the appeal is dismissed in limine.

M. Y. M.

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.