Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. QSA‑584 of 1983, decided on 11^th July, 1984.

‑‑‑S.25‑A‑‑Grievance notice and grievance petition‑‑Bank employee filing departmental appeal against impugned dismissal order‑‑Limitation would stop running but after dismissal of appeal grievance notice should be filed within 3 months‑‑During pendency of departmental appeal another appeal and reminder filed‑‑After dismissal of appeal second appeal or reminder, held, could not be treated as a grievance notice‑‑Reminder could be treated as a grievance notice in case departmental appeal remained undecided.

‑‑‑S .25‑A‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Limitation‑‑Bank employee seeking relief against dismissal from service‑‑Departmental appeal contested as time- barred‑‑Such appeal however entertained and decided‑‑Time‑barred appeal having been entertained and disposed of on merits, in circum stances, held, would extend limitation for grievance notice and grievance petition.

M.A. Hamid Awan for Appellant.

Irshad Ali Mian for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 26th June, 1984.

The appeal captioned above arises from the decision, dated 16‑11‑1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.3, Lahore at Ferozewala, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant for his re‑instatement.

2. The allegations for which the appellant was dismissed from service were that he advanced Rs. 1,94,000 to an account‑holder although the limit of advancement was Rs. 1,00,000 only, that he allowed the removal of total pledge goods, whereas only some quantity had to be released on account of part payment of debt and that he kept undated cheque as part of cash for 41 days. On two grounds the petition has been dismissed. One is that no statutory grievance notice was given and that second appeal or reminder could not be treated as a grievance notice. The second is that even if the second appeal or reminder is treated as a grievance notice, the petition was time‑barred and the ground given for condonation of delay was not sufficient.

3. No doubt, on account of preferring departmental appeal the period of limitation stopped running but after the dismissal of the appeal, the grievance notice should have been given within three months. No doubt, second appeal or reminder was sent on 11‑1‑1983 but since the appeal was dismissed, thereafter, the said reminder or other appeal stood dismissed alongwith the regular appeal and thus the reminder was rightly not treated as a grievance notice. If the appeal had not been dismissed and had remained pending, the reminder could have been treated as a grievance notice, because punished employee can after waiting for a reasonable time bring a grievance petition after service of grievance notice not choosing to wait more. In para. 5 of the grievance petition it is mentioned that the appeal has been disposed of. The learned lower Court has thus rightly refused to treat the second appeal or reminder as a grievance notice.

4. However, the petition does not appear to be time‑barred. Firstly the appeal lodged on 13‑4‑1982 was not time‑barred as the dismissal order, according to the appellant, was passed on 28‑1‑1982 and this contention was not controverted by the respondent in its written statement and secondly where a time‑barred appeal is entertained and disposed of on merits, it in spite of being time‑barred extends the period of limitation.

5. As a result, the appeal being without any force is dismissed.

A. E.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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