Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑46 of 1985, decided on 17th February, 1985.

‑‑‑S.25‑A‑‑Grievance notice‑‑Limitation‑‑Departmental appeal‑‑Cause of action arises on rejection of appeal and not from date of imposition of impugned penalty‑‑Departmental appeal remaining unreplied till grievance notice served‑‑Grievance notice, in circumstances, held, within time though served much after expiry of three months from penalty order.

Qazi Muhammad Yasin for Appellant.

Date of hearing: 10th February, 1985.

The decision, dated 10‑12‑1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore has been challenged in this appeal, whereby the respondent was directed to be re‑instated in service without back benefits.

2. The respondent was a plumber. His services were terminated on the plea that the work for which he was employed was near to completion. It was contended by the appellant that the grievance notice and the petition were time‑barred, inasmuch as the order of termination, dated 29‑6‑1979 was conveyed to the respondent on 30‑6‑1979 but the grievance notice was given on 21‑4‑1983. Admittedly, a departmental appeal was lodged by the respondent which remained unreplied till the grievance notice was given. I do not find any force in the argument of the learned counsel that without waiting for the disposal of the appeal, the grievance notice should have been given within three months of the service of the order of termination. Where departmental appeal has been lodged, the cause of grievance arises on the rejection of the appeal and not from the date of imposition of penalty. So the grievance notice and the grievance petition were within time.

3. So far as merits are concerned P.W.1 admitted that a plumber junior to the respondent was still in service. It has been argued that the junior plumber was Grade‑II, whereas the respondent was in Grade‑1. There is no evidence to this effect. Question of seniority arises when in the same cadre or category more than one person are working. So if the grades of the respondent and Muhammad Nawaz, plumber, had been different, the latter would not have been described by P.W.1 as junior to the respondent. Since the junior plumber was retained in service, this is wrong that the work had been completed. The respondent was, therefore, rightly directed to be re‑instated in service.

4. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine.

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.