Find a Lawyer

Appeal No.GA-150 of 1985, decided on 16th October, 1985.

---S. 25-A--Grievance notice--Limitation--Service of impugned dismissal order not proved--Limitation for grievance notice, in circumstances, held, started from date of knowledge of petitioner.

--- Misconduct--Absence--Application for leave submitted for purposes of pilgrimage but no order passed thereon and intimation of rejection not conveyed--Workman proceeding on leave on verbal assurance of competent authority--Workman, in circumstances, held, not guilty of willful absence without leave.

---S.1(4)(c)--Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.4- Exclusion from ambit of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968--Municipal Committee governed by S.4 of Local Government Ordinance, 1979--Not relevant- Conditions for exclusion--Establishment must be running by or under authority of Government and should have its statutory rules--No evidence on such points available on record and findings thereon not recorded by Labour Court--Case, in circumstances, remanded by Appellate Tribunal to Labour Court to give findings keeping in view nature of functions of Municipal Committee.

Sardar Muhammad Adeeb for Appellant.

Ch. Manzoor Ahmad for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 8th October, 1985.

The decision, dated 16-2-1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.7, Gujranwala has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for her re-instatement in service was dismissed.

2. The appellant was a peon in a girl school of Municipal Committee, Hafizabad. She applied for two years leave without pay for going to Haj and visiting her relatives residing in Saudi Arabia. Before the application for leave could be granted or rejected, she proceeded on leave. After about a month her application was rejected. The learned lower Court has held that the grievance notice is Mme-barred. The plea of the respondent of service of intimation of rejection of leave and service of dismissal order have been accepted by the learned lower Court without any evidence. The peon, who is alleged to have taken the intimation of rejection of leave and of the order of dismissal at the resident of the appellant, was not examined. R.W. 1 is the education clerk and not the peon who is alleged to have taken the said documents to the appellant. He even did not say that the peon was not available and that the reports were bearing his signatures. Since the service of dismissal order does not stand proved, the grievance notice from the date of knowledge was within time. As the intimation of rejection of leave was not served upon the husband of the appellant, the absence cannot be said to be willful and without leave. Admittedly, the appellant had applied for leave, the decision of which was inordinately delayed. Since the appellant had to go on pilgrimage, she could not wait and was justified in proceeding on leave on the verbal assurance given to her by the Chairman as deposed by her in answer to cross-examination. The Chairman was not examined to rebut the statement bf the appellant in this respect. If intimation of rejection of leave had been served on the husband of the appellant at her known residence, she may have come back getting information. Admittedly she was neither charge-sheeted nor any inquiry was held. The learned lower Court has wrongly relied upon the rule of the respondent-committee. Application of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is excluded if the conditions given in proviso to section 1(4)(c) are available. One condition is that the establishment must be running by or under the authority of the Government and. the other is that the establishment should have its own statutory rules. The learned lower Court has not said anything to exclude the application of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. In the written statement, it is contended that according to section 4 of the Local Government Ordinance, the Committee is governed by the said Ordinance only. The learned lower Court has not recorded any finding on this point. The point to be considered is not that if the committee is governed by the Local Government Ordinance but it is to be seen if the appellant, according to the nature of the functions of the respondent is governed by the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 or the Local Government Ordinance. The case, therefore, is liable to be remanded for complete decision on all the points raised before the learned lower Court.

3. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the case is remanded for re-decision in the light oaf the observations made a0ove. If the parties want to lead any evidence on any point, the learned .lower Court will be at liberty to consider the request.

A.B. Appeal 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.