Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Appeal No. B R‑191 of 1984, decided on 18th November, 1984.
‑‑Para. 258 (9) & (16)‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 25‑A‑Grievance petition of Bank employee‑Limitation No provision of second appeal to Bank Authority provided under para. 258 (9) and (16) of First Wage Commission Award‑Appeal rejected by concerned Appellate Authority but employee making second appeal‑Limitation for grievance notice and grievance petition, in circumstances, held, started from date first appeal re jected.
Aqa Asif Jaffry for Appellant.
Ch. Altaf Hussain for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 12th November, 1984.
The decision dated 7th April, 1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed as time -barred.
2. The yearly increment of the appellant was stopped vide order dated 11th August, 1980 (copy Exh. P. 3). Appeal was preferred by the appellant on 11th November, 1980 which was vide order Exh. R‑11 dismis sed on 23rd September, 1981. The appellant, instead of giving grievance notice and bringing grievance petition, preferred second appeal on 26th June, 1981, which was vide order Exh. P‑6, withheld on 30th January 1983. The appellant then gave grievance notice on 18th February, 1983, which was followed by the grievance petition, from the dismissal of which, the present appeal arises.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued without force that vide para. 16 only the order of withholding of appeal is final as no appeal lies against such an order but the order dismissal first appeal is not final. There is no provision of second appeal in sub‑paras. 9 to 16 of para. 258 of the first Wage Commission Award. Since only one appeal lies, the cause of grievance arose to the appellant on 23rd April, 1981 when his' first appeal was disallowed. The grievance notice and the grievance petition were, therefore, rightly held as time‑barred by the learned lower Court.
4. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
A.E
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer