Find a Lawyer

Petition, decided on 26‑6‑1983.

‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Delay in filing petition‑‑Delay caused due to late issue of grievance notice‑‑Petitioner restrained by circumstances beyond his control to issue a notice earlier as he genuinely thought that notice issued previously through Advocate was valid which, though upheld by Labour Tribunal was not approved by Supreme Court in a case as same was given by an Advocate and petitioner had to issue grievance notice afresh‑‑Delay in filing petition condoned in circumstances.

P L D 1980 S C 80; P L D 1974 Lah. 434 and 1979 P L C 526 ref.

‑‑‑S.O. 15(4)‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S.25‑A‑ Termination of services‑‑Petitioner, a workman, his duty was manual and he was expected to run about for his business to achieve respective targets‑‑His termination was ordered with undue haste without observing proper formality‑‑He was entitled to an enquiry, a right of self‑defence which were denied to him unlawfully‑‑Petitioner reinstated with back benefits.

‑‑‑‑S. 11‑‑Res judicata‑‑Order not passed on merits‑‑Not to operate as res judicata.

This is a petition under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. 1969. The petitioner alleged that he was appointed in the respondent company in 1972 as an Inspector and his service was later on confirmed in 1974 but on 23‑8‑1978 it was terminated by the Deputy General Manager; that this termination was illegal as the Deputy General Manager was not the appointing authority of the petitioner anti so he had no right to terminate the petitioner; that the petitioner was neither charge‑sheeted nor an inquiry was held against him; that the petitioner was a workman and so he had a right to be heard personally after the proper departmental proceedings and prior to the termination; that the petitioner served a grievance notice through the counsel and this Court held that it was not valid and petitioner went in appeal and the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal ruled that the notice was in order and the matter was remanded and then the Supreme Court made an observation which was published in P L D 1980 S C 80 in which it was held that a notice issued by a counsel was not lawful and so again this Court dismissed the petition and the petitioner re-coursed to the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal where during the course of arguments the appeal was withdrawn and then after fresh issuance of the grievance notice he came to this Court for his reinstatement with the back benefits.

In the reply the respondent maintained that this Court did not have the jurisdiction to deal with this matter, that this petition was barred by limitation as well as res judicata; that the petitioner was not a workman; that the petition was not maintainable as the petitioner's appointment was on a contract basis; that the petitioner was appointed as Inspector in March, 1972 by the Deputy General Manager, that the petitioner had been working as Branch Manager since 1‑1‑1975 and his nature of job was supervisory; that a show‑cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 23‑7‑1978 but he did not care to reply; that the Deputy General Manager was competent to terminate the petitioner and that the impugned order was perfectly legal.

Initially the grievance notice was served by the petitioner through his counsel and this service was considered as valid by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, vide order (Exh. P.5), dated 19‑8‑1979 but in view of the enunciation of law by the Supreme Court mentioned in PLD 1980 S C 80, the petitioner could not avail his remedy in a Labour Court without a personal notice so in consequence of the order of the tribunal, dated 29‑9‑1980 (Exh. P. 4) he issued the grievance notice (Exh. P: 2), on 2‑10‑1980 and then brought this petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on P L D 1974 Lah. 434, 1979 PLC 526 and 1977 P L C 715 and has contended that the petitioner was restrained by circumstances beyond his control to issue a notice earlier by himself as he genuinely thought and so was affirmed by the Tribunal that his previous notice was valid and so the petitioner could not be penalized for a fault for which he was not at all responsible and so his delay in filing of this petition be condoned. This contention being quite reasonable is upheld.

The petitioner has produced cogent evidence to prove that he had to work manually in his office and that by merely designating him a Branch Manager he did not cease to be a workman. In the letters Exh. P.1 and Exh. P. 3 addressed to him by the Deputy General Manager he has not mentioned as Branch Manager and the notice Exh. P. 3 particularly shows that the nature of the petitioner's duty was manual rather than supervisory because he was expected to run for his business to achieve the respective targets. The impugned order E Exh. P. 1 was issued by the Deputy General Manager in an undue haste and without the observance of the proper formalities and I think he had tried to get rid of the petitioner summarily and this was unwarranted by law. The petitioner was entitled to an inquiry and a right of self‑defence and admittedly both were denied to him unlawfully by the respondent. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order was void ab initio and so no limitation ran against the petitioner.

The orders of the Tribunal Exh. P.4/5 were not on merits and so this petition is not barred by res judicata.

In the circumstances, I have no alternative other than to reinstate the petitioner with the back benefits. Ordered accordingly.

M. Y. H. Petition 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.