Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. R. Y. Khan‑302 of 1984/Pb., decided on 12^th July, 1984.

‑‑‑S.25‑A‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Dismissed as time‑barred‑‑Observations recorded by Labour Court would not be direction to redress grievance.

Naeem Bokhari for Appellant.

Mr. Suleman for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 9th July, 1984.

The appeal captioned above arises from the decision, dated 3‑5‑1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.8, Bahawalpur, dismissing the grievance petition of the respondent as time‑barred but at the same time holding that the respondent is entitled to the benefits of the settlement, dated 17‑8‑1983. The respondent has brought cross objections also against the dismissal of his petition for re‑instatement as time‑barred.

2. Both the parties are under misconception. Since the grievance petition was dismissed as time‑barred, the appellant was not the aggrieved party arid could not come up in appeal. No doubt, the learned lower Court hold that the respondent was entitled to the benefits of the settlement, but this opinion was expressed to avoid a remand order if this Tribunal found that the petition was not time‑barred. Needless to say that when a petition has been dismissed, there is no direction to redress the grievance of the worker. Since the petition was dismissed, the respondent was the aggrieved party and could challenge the decision in appeal but instead of preferring an appeal cross‑objections have been filed. Since the respondent is before this Tribunal in any capacity, I deem it necessary to record finding on the controvercial points. So far as the prayer of re‑instatement is concerned, the grievance notice was time‑barred. The services of the respondent were terminated on 12‑4‑1983 on the ground that due to illness he was not capable of doing his duties. Grievance notice was served on 3‑12‑1983. Obviously, it was time‑barred. It was not asserted in the grievance petition that any departmental appeal was lodged and that from the date of its decision the grievance notice was within time, nor on the record any evidence was brought to this effect. So the petition so far as it relates to the prayer of re‑instatement was incompetent.

3. However, the petition was not time‑barred so far as the claim about the benefits based upon the settlement, dated 17‑8‑1983 is concerned. The cause of grievance in this respect arise to the respondent from the date he was refused the benefits of the settlement. There is no evidence on which date the benefits were allowed to others and were refused to the respondent. Sometime after the execution of the settlement, dues may have been paid to the other workers.

4. However, even on merits the respondent has no case for the benefits. In Note‑I appended to the settlement it is mentioned that the workers who were retired from service since 1‑1‑1982 would be entitled to the benefits of the settlement. The respondent had been terminated retired much before that, so is not entitled to the benefits of the settlement. I have in a petition under section 50 interpreted the said settlement to mean that section 39 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was not applicable and the time fixed in the settlement would operate for allowing benefits to the workers. Since as mentioned above, the respondent was relieved prior to the said date, he is not entitled to the benefits and the learned lower Court has wrongly held that he is entitled.

5. As a result, ‑the appeal and the cross‑objections are disposed of accordingly.

A. E.

Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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