Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Appeal No. LHR 313 of 1984, decided on 8th July, 1985.
‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Grievance notice‑‑Representation or appeal addressed to appellate authority‑‑Can be treated as grievance notice.
‑‑‑S.25‑A‑‑Grievance notice‑‑Limitation‑‑Appeal or representation preferred and rejected‑‑Cause of grievance, in circumstances, held, accrues from rejection of representation or appeal and limitation to run from such date for purpose of grievance notice.
‑‑‑Designation‑‑Whether can be changed‑‑Railway employee appointed as Tool‑maker‑‑Designation changed as Tool‑issuer against option of employee‑‑Labour Appellate Tribunal, in circumstances, accepting grievance petition and directing restoration of original designation‑‑ Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss.25‑A &38(3).
S.A. Latif for the Appellants.
Syed Intisar Hussain for the Respondents.
Date of hearing: 18th June, 1985.
The decision, dated 24‑4‑1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore has been challenged whereby the grievance petition of the appellants for being redesignated as Tool maker was dismissed only on the ground that no grievance notice was issued by the appellants and if the representation Exh.P.6 was treated as grievance notice, it was time‑barred.
2. The facts are that the appellants were tool‑makers and option was invited from them to be designated as tool‑issuers. The appellants refused to opt to the post of tool‑issuer but the respondents changed their designation. The learned lower Court has held that the appellants were wrongly redesignated as tool‑issuer against their wishes but, as mentioned above, the grievance petition was dismissed on the ground that no grievance notice was served. So far as the point of treating an appeal or representation as a grievance notice is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondent has argued that this is not possible as the representation or appeal goes to the appellate authority, whereas the grievance notice is to be served upon the employer. The argument is without force. After passing an order the employer becomes functus officio and is not in a position to change or withdraw his order on receipt of grievance notice. In cases where a request made in grievance notice is found to be acceptable, the matter is referred to the higher authority and the employer himself cannot help it. So the grievance notice also ultimately reaches the appellate authority. Appeals are no doubt addressed to the appellate authority and they are routed through the employer with marginal notes. But since the grievance notice as well as the appeals or representations ultimately go to the appellate authority, therefore, there could be no legal bar in treating the representation or appeal as grievance notice. The learned lower Court appears to be inclined to treat the representation Exh.P.6 as grievance notice but holds that Exh.P.6 was time‑barred. The learned Presiding Officer fell in error in saying that Exh.P.6 is time‑barred. The learned lower Court has calculated the period of limitation from the date of original order, whereby the designation of the appellants was changed and thus fell in error. In cases where an appeal or representation has been preferred, the cause of grievance accrues from the rejection of the same and not from the date of original order. In the present case before making representation Exh.P.6 the appellants admittedly preferred a departmental appeal which was rejected. No doubt, the copy of the said appeal is not on the record, nor its date is known but the said appeal was dismissed and intimation of its dismissal was sent to the appellants, vide Exh. P.7, which does not show that the appeal of the appellants was time‑barred or not, but it is clear from the order that it was not dismissed as time‑barred, nor it is mentioned that it was preferred after the expiry of the period of limitation. Exh.P.7 is dated 3‑8‑1982. From this date the cause of grievance arose to the appellants and they sent Exh.P.5 wrongly mentioning it as a representation. The date of Exh. P.6 is 13‑10‑1982 which shows that it was sent within three months of the rejection of appeal. As mentioned above, the intimation of rejection of appeal was sent on 3‑8‑1982 which means that grievance notice was to be sent upto 2‑11‑1982. So Exh.P.6 which is dated 13‑8‑1982 was quite within time. This aspect of the case was not examined by the learned lower Court. It may have escaped its notice. So it is held that Exh.P.6 grievance notice was served within time.
3. As a result of the observations made above, the appeal is accepted and the respondents are directed to designate the appellants as tool‑ p makers from the date they were redesignated as tool‑issues.
A.E.
Appeal accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer