Find a Lawyer

Appeals Nos. FD-2, 3 and 4 of 1986, decided on 9th April, 1986.

(a) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)--

---S.O. 13--Industrial Relations Ordinance (XIII of 1969), Ss. 25-A & 38(3)--Retrenchment--Other person employed after expiry of one year- No violation of S.O. 13--Grievance petition of retrenched worker, seeking re-instatement/re employment, in circumstances, held, was rightly dismissed.

---S. 25-A--Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 14--Grievance petition- Limitation--Time spent in wrong proceedings--To be excluded- Limitation time yet available before bringing previous petition--Such period, held, can be considered, for fresh petition after deducting period for which wrong proceedings remained pending.

1984 P L C 1440 and 1984 P L C 938 distinguished. .

Mahboob Alam for Appellants.

Maudood Akbar for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 5th April, 1986.

The three appeals captioned above arise from the decisions dated 20-11-1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petitions of the appellants for their re-instatement in service were dismissed. As the questions o1 1A fact and law involved in all the appeals are common. they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.

2. On the basis of a settlement arrived at between the respondent and the Union it was decided to abolish certain posts and to terminate the services of their incumbents with a stipulation that if within one year of the termination of service, their services were required, they would be recalled and no other person would be employed against their posts within the said period. The case of the appellants is that within one year the respondent employed other persons and did not recall them.

3. So far as the case of Manzoor Hussain, appellant, is concerned, he alone appeared as his own witness in support of his case, far as the other two appellants are concerned, they besides appearing as their own witnesses, had examined Ahmad Ali, General Secretary of Janbaz Textile Federation on the point. The said witness deposed in the case of Muhammad Yousuf, appellant, that after the termination of the services of the said appellant, one Muhammad Sarwar was recruited who was working uptil then. In cross-examination he admitted that the said Sarwar was not allowed bonus for two years since in the record of the respondent, there was no mention of his service. In the case of Ghulam Hussain, Ahmad Ali deposed that against the vacancy caused by the termination of services of Ghulam Hussain, one Muhammad Yasin son of Abdul Sattar had been employed after 15 days of the termination of the services of the said appellant. RW-1 Shafiq Ahmad Accountant brought the record and deposed in all the three cases that after the expiry of one year other persons were employed. He produced copies of the applications for service of the said persons also. He did not produce the attendance register no doubt, but the same was not called by the appellants. He deposed that Muhammad Yasin was employed as foreman on 1-10-1984. He produced photo copy of the application of Muhammad Yasin as Exh. R-4 and attendance register Exh. R-5. Exh. R-6 is the copy of the application of Muhammad Sarwar Kazi and Exh.R-7 is that of Muhammad Tariq Sarwar. Their perusal shows that the said persons were employed after one year of the termination of the services of the appellants and not within one year. So, neither the terms of the E settlement, nor of Standing Order 13 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 were violated. I do not find any force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the persons who were employed in place of the appellants should have been examined as witnesses. If they had been produced as witnesses, the objection of the appellants would have been that they were interested persons, inasmuch as, if the petitions of the appellants had been accepted, the services of the said persons were to be terminated in order to make room for the appellants. So, the evidence of the appellants and that of Ahmad stands completely controverted by the oral statement of R.W.1 and the copies of the applications of Muhammad Yasin, Muhammad Sarwar Kazi and Muhammad Sarwar Tariq and the copy of the attendance register.

4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned lower Court has wrongly found that the fresh grievance petitions of the appellants were time-barred. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that after the previous petitions were brought, the matter came to an end and the period which at that time was available for bringing the grievance petition, ceased to remain available for the appellate for bringing fresh petitions. I do not find any force in this argument. According to section 14 of the Limitation Act, the period spent in wrong proceedings is to be excluded. So, if still sometime was available for the appellants before they had brought the previous petition, that period can be considered after deducting the period for which the wrong proceedings remained pending. In the present case a month and in days only were wasted by the appellants while they brought the previous grievance petitions, therefore, 34 days were still available for them and after decocting from it 20 days which they wasted after the withdrawal of the previous petitions, still there were 14 days available to the appellants to bring the fresh petitions. Learned counsel cited 1984 P L C 1440 and 1984 P L C 938. No doubt in the said authorities it was held by this tribunal that each day's delay was to be explained but it does not appear that not on the last day of the termination of the period of limitation, the previous grievance petitions were brought, therefore, the said authorities are not helpful. The learned lower Court, therefore, wrongly came to the conclusion that the fresh petitions were time-barred.

5. As a result of the observations made above, all the three appeals fail and are consequently dismissed.

A. E.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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