Find a Lawyer

Appeals Nos. JM‑470 to 495 of 1985, decided on 12th October, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Presentation of‑‑Presentation by counsel‑‑Improper‑‑Petitioner himself appearing before Labour Court within limitation period and pursuing case‑‑Petition, in circumstances, held, would be considered as properly presented even if earlier presentation was improper.

1985 P L C 413ref.

Ch. Sadiq Muhammad Warraich for Appellants.

Tanveer Bashir Ansari for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 5th October, 1985.

The twenty‑six appeals captioned above arise from the orders, dated 24‑7‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi, whereby following 1985 P L C 413 the grievance petitions of the appellants were dismissed on the short ground that they were not presented by appellants in person or by their shop towards or the C.B.A. As the law point involved in all the 26 appeals is common, all of them are being disposed of together through this single judgment.

2. So far as appeals mentioned at serial Nos. 1 to 12 are concerned, firstly the appellants had given grievance notice to the respondent for being treated as confirmed employees. Thereafter, when the appellants were terminated from service treating them as temporary and they served another grievance notice asking for their re‑instatement and when no reply came, they brought separate grievance petitions for being re‑instated in service as permanent employees. All the grievance petitions, however, were presented by the lawyer Ch. Sadiq Muhammad Warraich. The learned lower Court has held that since the grievance petitioners were not presented by the appellants themselves, the presentation was not proper. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that as the appellants appeared in person on 14‑9‑1983 in person when still the period of limitation for presenting the grievance petitions was available, the petitions could not be dismissed for improper presentation. On the other hand it has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that since initially the petitions were presented not by the appellants or their shop steward or the C.B.A. the personal appearance, if any, on subsequent date, was immaterial. I do not find any force in this argument. If the party appears in person within A limitation and pursues the case, then even if the earlier presentation is improper, the petition would be considered as properly presented on the date the party appears in person. The provision of presentation of grievance petition in person or through shop steward or the C.B.A. appears to have been made to exclude the possibility of frivolous litigation and of black mailing the employers where the worker does not intend to challenge an order passed by his employer. Some unauthorised persons are likely to bring frivolous applications in order to get some benefits from the employer under the pressure of the litigation. There appears to be no intention of the Legislature, except the one mentioned above. This is not the intention of the Legislature that the worker may be deprived on flimsy grounds of getting judicial remedy. If the workers appear in person within limitation and persue the petitions brought by their counsel, it means that the petitions were brought under their instructions. However, if the workers fails to attend the Court in person within limitation, they cannot defy the law of limitation and Courts would be idle to hold that the presentation was proper.

3. So far as appeals mentioned at serial Nos. 1 to 12 are concerned, the other argument of the learned counsel for the respondent is that grievance petitions challenging the act of the respondent in treating the appellants as temporary had become time‑barred before 14‑9‑1983 when the appellants appeared in person. This is true that from the date of earlier grievance notices whereby the appellants had asked the respondent to treat them as permanent, the period of limitation for bringing the grievance petitions had expired before 14‑9‑1983 but it makes no difference because the act of the respondent in not treating the appellants as permanent merged in the order of termination of service and it was the order of termination that gave cause of grievance to the appellants to knock the door of the Court.

4. But, for holding finally that presentation became proper on 14‑9‑1983 there is a difficulty, which cannot be resolved unless the parties are afforded opportunity to produce evidence. It is not recorded on 14‑9‑1983 that the appellants were present in person. The order is 'Parties present. Vakalatnama submitted. Put up on 3‑10‑1983 for reply'. Usually the employer who passes the order of punishment does not appear in person except on the date of evidence and that too if he has to appear as a witness. So it is difficult to say that by the words 'Parties present' the learned lower Court definitely meant that the appellants and the employer were present in person. Possibility cannot be excluded that counsel may have appeared and instead of recording their presence the Court recorded the order 'Parties present'. Since Vakalatnama was presented, it raises a rebutable presumption that the counsel may have appeared. So, only by producing evidence, the parties can prove if on 14‑9‑1983 in reality parties appeared in person or their counsel only appeared. If only counsel appeared, the presentation would not be proper even on 14‑9‑1983.

5. As a result, the appeals are accepted and setting aside the impugned orders, the cases are remanded with the direction that after affording proper opportunity to both the parties to produce evidence on the point if on 14‑9‑1983 the appellants attended the Court in person or not, the question of presentation of the petitions being proper or not should be redecided in the light of the observations made above.

A.E. Appeals 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.