Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. SUK‑11 177 of 1983, heard on 11th April, 1985.

‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3) ‑ Grievance petition---Limitation---Three months‑Petitioners work‑charged employees claiming to be regula rised from 1974‑Regularisation order issued in 1979‑‑Petitions filed in 1982‑Time‑barred‑Order of Labour Court dismissing grievance petition, in circumstances, upheld by Appellate Tribunal.

Shabbir Awan for. Appellants.

Manzar Alam, A.P.P. for Respondents

Date of bearing :11th April, 1985.

This is an appeal against the order of Sind Labour Court No. VII at Sukkur, who dismissed the two grievance applications filed by the appel lants, on 30th April, 1983.

2. The brief facts of the grievance applications were that the appel lants were working in the Provincial Buildings Division, Sukkur, on work charge establishment since long. They have claimed that they were entitled to be brought on regular establishment with effect from 1st January, 1974 under the restrictions contained in letter No. F. D. (S.R. 11 1‑64/77, dated 2nd August, 1974. That in spite of several applications and requests no action has been taken in this regard and the appellants were being treated as work‑charged employees although they were being paid their salaries from regular Budget. They preferred the grievance petitions.

3. The respondents in reply statement pleaded that the post of regular employees were not sanctioned by respondent No. 1 and, therefore, the work‑charged establishment employees could not be brought on regular establishment on 1st January, 1974. They have pleaded that the appel lants were brought on regular establishment with effect from 1st August, 1979. The grievance notices are against the mandatory provisions of section 25‑A, I.R.O, 1969, and they are hopelessly time‑barred.

4. The Labour Court examined the appellants, Exh. 3, the affidavits filed by Abdul Rahim and Muhammad Suleman. The respon dents in their support filed the affidavit of Ushar Ahmed, Assistant Engineer and a Court witness, who was examined on 19th April, 1983, who was Respondent No. 3.

5.I have heard both the Advocates. The cause of action arose on publication, of letter, dated 2nd August, 1974, that the appellants who were on the basis of work‑charged employees be regularised. Therefore, the work‑charged establishment employees could not be brought on regular establishment from 1st January, 1974. That the appellants have been brought on regular establishment with effect from 1st August, 1979 and thereafter they are being paid as regular employees. The contention of the appellants is that they made representations and applications to the Government and also to the Respondent No. 1, but there was no effect of 'these representations and applications. 1n evidence no copies of those representations and applications are brought on record. The fact which emerge from the evidence on record is that they were regularized from 1^st August, 1979. The grievance petitions were filed in the year 1982 after about one year or so after the cause of action. The mandatory provision of section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969, is that they have to move the grievance petition within three months, as such the grievance application was not filed. Therefore, the grievance petitions were time‑barred. Even if the grievance petitions were filed for the recovery of amounts since 1st Even 1974, then too, the petitions were time‑barred as much time has elapsed to their grievances. The only remedy was that the respondent state that these posts were not sanctioned by the Government and as such they were regularized in the year 1979. As it appears on the fact of it that these petitions were time‑barred, I agree with the learned Labour Court and dismiss this appeal.

A. E.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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