Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. FD‑338 of 1984, decided on 25th November, 1984.

‑‑Ss. 25‑A, 36 & 38 (3)‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, r. 11‑Grievance petition‑Limitation--Condonation of delay‑Practice and procedure‑Departmental appeal not replied to‑Labour Court remarking that petitioner, without waiting for result of departmental appeal should have brought grievance notice within time and dismissing petition in limine as time‑barred‑View taken by Labour Court, held, erroneous‑Cause of action in such cases, held, would start from rejection of departmental appeal --Petitioner, in circumstances, when decision on departmental appeal delayed, held, could bring petition after service of grievance notice and no question of limitation would arise‑Petitioner claiming to have filed grievance notice when result of departmental appeal not communicated ‑ Labour Court, held, should have entertained petition and decided it after hearing parties‑Petition could be rejected summarily if it disclosed no cause of grievance.

Sh. Abdul Ghafoor for Appellant.

Khalil-ur‑Rehman for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 20th November, 1984,

The decision dated 31st May, 1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Lahore at Ferozewala has been challenged in this appeal, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed in limine as time‑barred, rejecting the prayer for condona tion of delay.

2. The dismissal order challenged by the appellant is dated 31st March, 1982. The basis of the dismissal was the conviction of the appellant in a criminal case. The appellant is alleged to have filed departmental appeal, whereupon he was asked to send copy of the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, whereby the sentence had been reduced to the one already undergone. The appellant is alleged to have been informed vide letter, dated 13th July, 1982 that the case had been submitted to the Divisional Superintendent. Thereafter, according to the appellant, no intimation was given to him about the fate of his appeal. All these facts were alleged by the appellant in his grievance petition and the application for condonation of delay. He has filed his affidavit also before the learned lower Court in support of the said application given under section 5 of the Limitation Act.

3. The learned lower Court has remarked that the appellant should have, without waiting for the result of his departmental appeal, brought the grievance notice within time. This view is erroneous. If an employee challenges the order passed against him in departmental appeal, he has to wait for its result and cause of grievance accrues to him on its rejection. Period of limitation in such cases would start from the information of rejection of the appeal. If the decision has been delayed, he may, without further waiting for the result, bring grievance petition after the service or a grievance notice and no question of limitation would arise in such cases Since the appellant alleged that he had preferred a departmental appeal and that he was not communicated its result upto the time he had served the grievance notice, it was necessary to entertain the grievance petition and to decide it after hearing both the parties. Petitions may be rejected summarily when they do not disclose any cause of grievance just as plaints are rejected under Order VII, rule 11, C. P. C., otherwise it 6 necessary to give opportunity to the parties to prove the contentions before finally deciding the cases.

4. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the case is remanded for being dispo sed of in the conventional manner.

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.