Find a Lawyer

Appeals Nos. ST‑305 to 309 of 1984, decided on 15th August, 1984.

‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Withdrawal of grievance petition‑‑Action taken under void agreement prima facie not sustainable‑‑Employees of Town Committee seeking redress against alleged wrongful termination‑‑Town Committee passing Resolution that they would be re‑instated if grievance petitions withdrawn‑‑Employees withdrawing grievance petition when both parties labouring under wrong impression that agreement was valid‑ Resolution forming basis of agreement subsequently found to have been passed in meeting presided over by person having no such jurisdiction/ power‑‑Employees again refused duty on plea that officer passing re instatement order had no such power‑‑Employees filing fresh grievance petition and same dismissed by Labour Court without adverting to question whether employees were bound by such agreement by which they withdrew .their previous petitions‑‑Employees, in circumstances, held, prima facie not bound by such agreement from which employer had backed out hence were entitled to get their previous petitions decided on merit‑‑Appellate Tribunal, in circumstances, allowing employees (appellants) to amend their petitions for making alternate prayer for decision on previous petitions, setting aside order of Labour Court and remanding case to Labour Court for re‑decision.

Nazir Ahmad Naz, Representative for Appellant.

Nemo for Respondent No.1.

Ch. Muhammad Abdullah for Respondents Nos. 2 to 4.

Date of hearing: 5^th August, 1984.

The above captioned five appeals arise from the decision dated 25‑4‑1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.7, Gujranwala, dismissing the grievance petitions of the appellants for their re‑instatement in service.

2. The appellants were sweepers. On the allegation that they had continuously refused to perform their duties and became absent, they were terminated from service. They brought separate grievance petitions, which were according to the case of the appellants, withdrawn on 24‑2‑1983 on the understanding that they would be re‑instated in service. According to the appellants, they were re‑instated vide order, dated 26‑2‑1983 (Copy Exh. P.4) and put back on duty. Duty was refused orally on 2‑5‑1983, so they after service of grievance notices brought grievance petitions from the dismissal of which the present five appeals arise.

3. The stand taken by the respondent is that the Chairman was ill and the officer who passed the order of re‑instatement had no authority. This plea has found favour with the learned lower Court and it was held that no evidence has been produced to show that Mr. Noor Ahmad Nishat had been nominated by the majority of the members present. Vide Resolution (Copy Exh. P.5) the appellants were given to understand that if they withdrew their grievance petitions and brought certificate from the Labour Court about the withdrawal, they would be re‑instated in service. The meeting in which this Resolution was passed was presided over by the same officer namely Mr. Noor Ahmad who is said to have no jurisdiction. The order of re‑instatement was passed pursuant to the resolution Exh. P.5. If Mr. Noor Ahmad had no authority then whatever was resolved in the meeting, dated 20‑2‑1983 was a nullity. This being so, it is not binding upon the appellants also. The prayer of withdrawal of the earlier grievance petitions, therefore, was made when both the parties were labouring under a wrong impression that the agreement was valid. An action taken under a void agreement is prima facie not sustainable. If the respondent backs out of the implemented agreement, the appellants prima facie are not bound by it and are entitled to get their earlier petitions decided on merits. This is true that in the statements made by the appellants for withdrawing the earlier petitions, it was not said that the respondent had agreed to re‑instate them but from the resolution, dated 20‑2‑1983 (Copy Exh. P.5) it is clear, as mentioned above, that the appellants withdrew the petitions on the understanding that they would be re‑instated. The learned lower Court did not avert to this aspect of the case because there was no clear cut prayer of the appellants in this behalf. The appellants too were justified in not making such a prayer because no fresh order was passed by the respondent for their termination giving reasons that their re‑instatement was without jurisdiction. First of all the respondent took up this plea in the written statement. The appellants should have after perusing the written statement applied for the amendment of their petitions for making a prayer that their previous grievance petitions may be recalled and decided on merits. At this stage no final opinion can be expressed whether the request for deciding the earlier petitions on merits must succeed but this may be said that such a prayer, if made, needs consideration in the peculiar circumstances of this case. The appellants thus are allowed to amend their petitions for making an alternative prayer of the decision of their earlier grievance petitions on merits. Since the cases are to be remanded, the appellants may produce evidence on the point whether Mr. Noor Ahmad had authority to perform executive powers.

4. As a result, the appeals are accepted and setting aside the impugned decisions of the learned lower Court, the cases are remanded for re-decision in the light of the observations made above. The appeal of Khan Masih, appellant, stands accepted ex parte as no one appeared for the respondent in that case on the date when the appeal was argued.

A. E.

Appeals accepted. Case remanded.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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