Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. RI‑108 of 1985, decided on 21st October, 1985.

‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 36‑‑Practice and procedure‑‑Pleadings‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Objection raised in pleadings that petition was time‑barred‑ Objection as to grievance notice being time‑barred not mentioned in pleadings, held, could not 'be raised‑‑Points raised in pleadings only can be considered and decided.

Ch. Muhammad Yousuf for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 14th October, 1985.

The decision, dated 17‑1‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for setting aside the punishment of W.I.P. for one year was dismissed.

2. The allegation against the appellant was that he received a down goods train and thus delayed the departure of special G.I.R. train by 25 minutes. So far as the allegation made against the appellant is concerned, there is nothing in the charge‑sheet that the appellant refused to start the special train on the plea that he had not received fitness certificate. No doubt, in the statement of the appellant this is mentioned but it appears that in order to explain the case of delay he put forward his plea but actually the cause of delay was the receiving of goods train. P.W.2 Mr. Ishaq Baig too denied that the appellant had objected to the starting of the special train on the plea that he was not in receipt of fitness certificate. So this plea is not to be attached any importance. However, issuing of fitness certificate is necessary. Admittedly, the V.I.P. passengers who had by travel in the special train had gone to Haripur and it was not known when they would be back. Without their arrival the special train could not start. R.W. 3 admitted that special train had become late due to the late arrival of the officers who had to travel in it. He and P.W. 2 stated that there were no instructions to suspend the normal work. P.W. 2 said that when he saw the rake of the special train moving from Line No. 2 to Line No. 3 he realised that the officers had come back, otherwise he had no knowledge and that he had asked the appellant to start the train but he said that unless the goods train was cleared, the special train could not be started. It is clear from the deposition of R.W. 2 that when he had asked the appellant to start the train having come to know that the officers had come back from Haripur, the goods train had already been received by the appellant. P.W. 2 also said that after getting information of the return of the officers from Haripur, he had to convey the said information to the appellant. It is thus clear that before the appellant was informed by P.W. 2, he had no knowledge that the officers had come back. Since, as deposed by P.Ws. 2 and 3, the normal operation had not been suspended, the appellant was justified in receiving the goods train when he had no knowledge that the officers had come back. So he was not guilty of any negligence.

3. The learned lower Court has held that the grievance notice was time‑barred. The date of the receipt of the grievance notice is not disputed but the dispute is about the delivery of the order of punishment called form 'C'. The acknowledgment attached to form 'C' is got signed by the employee who is delivered the said form. The said acknowledgment was not produced in evidence, nor any reason is given for its no production. Forwarding letter has been produced which carries the date as 30‑11‑1982. If it was wrongly dated as 30‑11‑1982 then the grievance notice would not be time‑barred. The original acknowledgment bearing the signatures and date of delivery should have been produced or its misplacement should have been urged and proved. The appellant was from the very beginning asserting that he had received the order of punishment on 15‑1‑1983. The other thing is that the learned lower Court has missed to see that the objection of time‑barred is not about grievance notice but is about grievance petition. The grievance petition would be time‑barred if it has not been presented within 21 months of the service of grievance notice or within two months of the receipt of the reply to the grievance notice. Since the plea was not that the grievance notice was time‑barred, the objection in this respect could not have been entertained and adjudicated upon. Needless to say that only those points can be considered and decided that have been raised in the pleadings. So far as the grievance petition is concerned, the same is within time from the date of the grievance notice.

4. As a result, the appeal is accepted and allowing the grievance petition, the punishment of W.I.P. for one year is set aside.

A. E. 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.