Find a Lawyer

Appeal No.KAR‑151 of 1984, heard on 7th November, 1984.

‑‑‑S.25‑A‑‑Grievance notice to employer and grievance petition before Labour Court‑‑Limitation‑‑Bank employee filing departmental review against impugned termination order‑‑Limitation for grievance notice, in circumstances, held, started from communication of order rejecting review‑‑Grievance notice replied within 15 days prescribed period‑ Grievance petition filed within 2 months from date of receipt of intimation regarding rejection of grievance notice, in circumstances, held, within time.

11981 P L C 184 and 1981 P L C 293 ref.

‑‑‑Ss.25 & 38(3)‑‑Grievance petition against termination of service‑‑Bank employee (Petitioner) though promoted as Officer Grade‑III claiming to be a workman‑‑Question needing evidence as to nature of duties‑ Designation not a determining factor‑‑No evidence recorded‑‑Appellate Tribunal, in circumstances, setting aside order of Labour Court whereby grievance petition was rejected and case remanded for decision afresh after evidence.

1982 P L C 903 ref.

Ali Amjad for Appellant.

Iqbal Habib for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 7th November, 1984.

This is an appeal directed against the order of the learned Labour Court No.III at Karachi, who on 7‑5‑1984, dismissed the grievance petition on the grounds that it was time‑barred.

2. The facts are that the appellant was appointed as a clerk in the United Bank Limited, Moti‑Jheell Branch, Dacca, and that he was repatriated to Karachi on 16‑1‑1973. He was promoted as an officer in the Grade‑III on 1‑1‑1978. The appellant claimed that though he was promoted to Grade‑III but his duties continued to be that of the clerical nature. On 19‑2‑1981, he was charge‑sheeted and a domestic enquiry was held and his services were terminated on 11‑4‑1982. The appellant submitted a review petition Annexure 'E', dated 12‑5‑1982 On rejection of the review petition on 22‑1‑1983, he sent a grievance notice under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, Annexure 'F', dated 2‑4‑1983. The grievance notice was rejected on 13‑4‑1983. He filed the grievance petition on 22‑5‑1983.

3. The learned Labour Court struck issues which are dealt with in para. 3 of the impugned order. These issues are as follows: --‑

(i) Whether the applicant is a workman as per provisions of labour laws. If not what is effect on the petition of the applicant

(ii) Whether application is not maintainable at law

(iii) Whether no proper enquiry was held against the petitioner

(iv) Whether the termination of the applicant was illegal and improper

(v) Whether the applicant is entitled to the relief claimed for

(vi) What should the order be

4. The learned Labour Court chose to decide the grievance application on issue No.2 and suo motu, he incidently arrived at the conclusion that the grievance petition was time‑barred. Although no issue was framed in respect of the application being time‑barred, yet the learned Labour Court proceeded to give his findings on this aspect of the case. In his decision he found that the grievance petition is time‑barred and hence he dismissed it but observed that it is not necessary to discuss the remaining issues.

5. This matter came before me in appeal. Mr. Ali Amjad argued at length on the Issue No. A. He also argued that the grievance petition is not time‑barred. I would take up the point whether the grievance petition is time‑barred under the facts which emerge on record. The admitted facts are that the review/appeal was filed on 12‑5‑1982 and the same was rejected on 22‑1‑1983. The grievance notice was given on 2‑4‑1983, which was replied on 13‑4‑1983, by the employer. The grievance petition was filed on 22‑5‑1983. The arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant are that the grievance petition is within time inasmuch as the appeal review was rejected on 22‑1‑1983, and that the appellant submitted grievance notice on 2‑4‑1983, which was well within time. Thereafter, the grievance notice was replied within 15 days by the employer and its result was communicated on 13‑4‑1983, which is an admitted fact. The grievance petition was filed on 22‑5‑1983, which was within 2 months of the date of the last order of the respondent. In this respect the learned counsel has relied on 1981 P L C 184. According to this authority the grievance arises on rejection of appeal. Grievance notice was served within the prescribed period of limitation from the date of rejection of appeal. It was held that the petition was not time‑barred. The learned counsel has also relied on 1981 P L C 293. On the face of it the petition is not time‑barred. Unfortunately the learned Labour Court in paragraph 4 has considered the review h petition, dated 12‑5‑1982, as the grievance notice. This is an error and the review/appeal was decided on 22‑1‑1983 from where the limitation would run.

6. As regards the findings of the learned Labour Court on Issue No.1 further evidence may be recorded to come to a conclusion whether the appellant did clerical work even though he was promoted. It is to be seen that the nature of duties performed by the petitioner/ appellant g and not the designation would be the determining factor whether the petitioner/ appellant is a workman or not. In this respect the learned counsel has relied upon 1982 P L C 903. Under these circumstances the finding on Issue No.1 may also be given afresh.

7. In the result I set aside the impugned order and remand it for decision afresh on merits.

A.E.

Appeal accepted,

case remanded.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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