Find a Lawyer

Application No. 28 of 1984, decided on 21^st November, 1984.

‑‑‑S.25‑A(1), (3) & (4)‑‑Grievance notice and Grievance petition‑Limitation‑‑Bank employee aggrieved of termination of service‑‑Not filing grievance notice within 3 months of date of impugned order but filing appeal after about a month‑‑No reply received on appeal and on further reminder informed after about 6 months that appeal was rejected whereafter filing grievance notice within 3 month‑‑Grievance notice thus filed after about 12 months of cause of action, in circumstances, held, time‑barred‑‑Departmental appeal if considered as a grievance notice applicant, held, could file application before Labour Court within period prescribed under S.25‑A(3) and (4) i.e. within 2 months after expiry of period of 15 days prescribed for employer's decision on grievance notice‑‑Application filed much after expiry of such period, in circumstances, held, not maintainable as time‑barred.

H.A. Jaffery for Applicant.

Iqbal Habib, Representative for Respondent.

This is an application filed by the applicant under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, praying that he may be re‑instated in service with back benefits.

2. The case of the applicant briefly stated is that he was working as an Officer Grade‑2 in the United Bank Limited, Chundrigar Road Branch, Karachi, under the supervision of the Branch Manager.

3. That he received a charge‑sheet, dated the 16th/19th February, 1981, alleging that while preparing various L/C proposals at Talpur Road Branch, the applicant had supplied fabricated figures concerning Messrs Standard Book Depot, Abco Traders and others. It was further alleged that approval was obtained for opening of L/C at 25 margin for import of Ethunomide Pharmaceutical raw materials instead of Chemicals which was subject to 50% margin.

4. That on the basis of the above charge‑sheet an enquiry was held against the applicant on 18‑5‑1981 onwards, and eventually, the services of the applicant were terminated vide respondent's letter, dated 13‑4‑1982.

5. That the applicant filed a departmental appeal on 11‑5‑1982. He did not receive any reply from the respondent and he, therefore, sent a reminder on 11‑7‑1982 and he received the reply from the respondent on 22‑1‑1983 informing him that the appeal was rejected.

6. That on 19‑4‑1883 the applicant sent a grievance notice to the respondent and then filed the present application before this Court.

7. The respondents have contested the above application and have filed legal objections and their reply statement. It has been contended that the applicant was not a "workman" as defined under the provisions of relevant Labour Laws. It has been contended that the duties performed by the applicant were not of a clerical nature.

8. The respondents have contended that a fair and impartial enquiry was conducted against the applicant who was found guilty of the above charges mentioned loss to the Bank on account of his misconduct. The services of the applicant were, therefore, rightly terminated.

9. It has further been contended that the Departmental Appeal filed by the applicant was time‑barred. His appeal, however, was rejected on 22‑1‑1983 and his grievance notice, dated 19‑4‑1983 was also time‑barred as the services of applicant had already been terminated on 13‑4‑1982.

10. That both the parties have led evidence. The applicant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. He also filed affidavits of two other witnesses namely, Ismail and Ahmed and then closed his side. On behalf of the respondents, affidavit of Amanullah Khan, Assistant Vice‑President of the Bank, was filed, whereafter the respondents closed their side. Both the parties filed written arguments.

11. On the pleadings of the parties, and the evidence that has been brought on the record, the main question which would require determination in the 'first instance would be whether the present application is maintainable being time‑barred and, if so, what is its effect.

12. In his application under section 25‑A of the I.R.O., 1969 the applicant has admitted that on 13‑4‑1982, he received the termination letter from the respondent. He then preferred a departmental appeal on 11‑5‑1982 and since, he did not receive any reply, he sent a reminder on 11‑7‑1982. He then received a reply from the respondent dated 22‑1‑1983 that his appeal had been rejected Thereafter, he sent a grievance notice to the respondent on 19‑4‑1983 and filed the present application under section 25‑A of I.R.O., 1969, before this Court on 3‑7‑1983. In his cross‑examination he has admitted the above facts.

13. On the basis of the above admitted facts, it has been contended on behalf of the respondent that the present application under section 25‑A of the I.R.O., 1969 is not maintainable as it is time‑barred. To appreciate this argument it would be relevant to refer to section 25‑A of the I.R.O., 1969 which reads as under:‑

"25‑A. Redress of Individual grievances.‑‑(1) A worker may bring his grievance in respect of any guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law or any award or settlement for the time being in force to the notice of his employer in writing, either himself or through his shop steward or (collective bargaining agent), within three months of the day on which cause of such grievance arises.

(2) Where a worker himself brings his grievance to the notice of the employer, the employer shall, within fifteen days of the grievance being brought to his notice, communicate his decision in writing to the worker.

(3) Where a worker brings his grievance to the notice of his employer through his shop steward or (collective bargaining agent) the employer shall, within seven days of grievance being brought to his notice, communicate his decision in writing to the shop steward or, as the case may be the (collective bargaining agent).

(4) If the employer fails to communicate a decision within the period specified in subsection (2) or, as the case may be, subsection (3), or if the worker is dissatisfied with such decision, the worker or shop steward may take the matter to his (collective bargaining agent) or the (Labour Court), or, as the case may be, the (collective bargaining agent) may take the matter to the (Labour Court), and where the matter is taken to the (Labour Court) it shall give (a decision) within (seven) days from the date of the matter being brought before it as if such matter were in an industrial dispute:

Provided that a worker who desires to so take the matter to the (Labour Court) shall do so within a period of two months from the date of the communication of the employer or, as the case may be, from the expiry of the period mentioned in subsection (2) or subsection (3), as the case may be."

14. It would be seen that a workman has to bring his grievance to the notice of the employer in writing within three months of the date on which, the cause of such grievance has arisen. In the present case, respondent has admitted that his services were terminated on 13‑4‑1982.

15. He sent the grievance notice on 19‑4‑1983 i.e. after about 12 months of the cause of action. This grievance notice, was, therefore, A clearly time‑barred and, as such, the present application under section 25‑A of the I.R.O., 1969 was not maintainable.

16. In the present case, however, the record shows that the applicant had preferred an appeal on 11‑5‑1982. He did not receive any reply, from the respondent before 22‑1‑1983, when he was informed that his appeal had been rejected. If his appeal, dated 11‑5‑1982 is considered as a grievance notice, the present application was not filed within the prescribed time. In that event the applicant ought to have approached the Labour Court in accordance with the provisions of subsections (3) and (4) of section 25‑A, and the proviso thereunder. In either of these two situations stated above, the present application under section 25‑A, is time‑barred. The applicant had to explain each day's delay which he has not done in the present case. In this view of the matter I have reached the conclusion that the present application is not maintainable. In view of my finding on the question of maintainability) of the present application, I have not considered it necessary to record in dings on the merits of the case. This application under section) 2W of the I.R.O., 1969 is accordingly dismissed.

M. Y. H.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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