Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. RI‑423 of 1984, decided on 16th August, 1984.

‑‑S. 25‑A‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss, 5 & 14 ‑ Grievance petition‑Limitation‑Period spent in wrong forum under bona fide belief to be excluded‑Bank employee under impression that Labour Court had no jurisdiction seeking remedy against termination of service by way of writ petition before High Court‑Writ petition rejected to on grounds of jurisdiction‑Time spent in writ petition, in circumstances, held, to be excluded and case not that of condonation of delay‑Non making of application for condonation of delay, held, would have no adverse effect.

Malik Jameel Fareed for Appellant.

Qazi Nasir Ahmad for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 9th August, 1984.

The above‑captioned appeal arises from the decision, dated 18th June, 1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi, dismissing as time‑barred the grievance petition of the appel lant for his reinstatement in service.

2. The appellant was dismissed on the allegation of misconduct on 2nd March, 1982. He appealed against the order on 10th May, 1982. It was rejected vide order, dated 10th May, 1983. The appellant instead of going to the Labour Court had filed a writ petition in the High Court on 14th July, 1982 which was dismissed on 7th December, 1983. Grievance notice was served on 19th December, 1983 and grievance petition lodged on 4th January, 1984. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that as there were divergent views of the Courts about the status of a Manager, therefore, the appellant had gone in writ thinking that the Labour Courts had no jurisdiction. According to him, under section 29 read with section 14 of the Limitation Act, the delay should have been condoned. The provision of condonation of delay is made in section 5 of the Limitation Act and not in section 14. If one under a bona fide belief litigates in a wrong forum, the period spent there is to be excluded for computation. Before the period meant for service of grievance notice could expire, appeal was preferred within time, so cause of grievance was to accrue on the rejection of appeal. Writ was lodged, as mentioned above, on 14th July, 1982 before the departmental appeal was dismissed. No doubt, cause of grievance accrued on 10th May, 1983 when the appeal was dismissed but as the writ was pending, the appellant was justified in waiting till its decision. Writ was dismissed as mentioned above on 7th December, 1983. If the period spent in pursuing the 'writ is excluded under section 14 of Limitation Act, then the grievance notice, dated 19th December, 1983 and the grievance petition lodged on 14th January, 1984 are within time. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondents has no force that writ was not rejected for want of jurisdiction. Since the High Court refused to interfere, the appellant, who before that was no certain as to what forum was competent, was justified to have access to only forum left i.e. the Labour Court. Since he was in doubt about the competency of the Labour Courts, so had gone in writ to the High Court. No doubt, alongwith the grievance petition no application for condonation of delay was given and was filed after objection as to limitation was taken in the written statement but since no question of condonation of delay was involved but question of exclusion of period spent in different forum was involved, it had no adverse effect. As the case has not been decided on merits, it is to be remanded.

3. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court and treating the grievance notice and the grievance petition as within time, the case is remanded for decision on merits.

A.E

Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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