Find a Lawyer

Application No. 84 of 1985, decided on 7th August, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Limitation‑‑Grievance notice‑‑Second grievance notice not to affect limitation‑‑Petition filed much after expiry of 2 months after waiting for 15 days for reply to grievance notice filed within prescribed limitation‑‑Contention to start limitation from date of second grievance notice‑‑Repelled and grievance petition dismissed as time‑barred.

1979 P L C .175; 1979 P L C 431; 1986 P L C 55; 1978 P L C 350; 1983 P L C 458 and 1981 P L C 605 ref.

P L D 1985 S C (AJ&K) 85; P L D 1984 S C (AJ&K) 71 and PLD 1984 Pesh. 57 held no longer applicable.

Muhammad Ahmed for Applicant.

S.M. Yaqoob for Respondents.

Applicant filed an application under section 25‑A of I.R.O., 1969 wherein he challenged termination of his service by the respondents and prayed for his re‑instatement in service with full back benefits, etc.

The services of the applicant were lastly terminated by the respondents vide letter, dated 20‑12‑1984 on account of his misconduct Annexure 'N' to the application. The applicant after receipt of the letter of dismissal from service sent a grievance notice, dated 1‑1‑1985 Annexure 'P' to the application wherein he challenged his dismissal from service of the respondents on the grounds, inter alia, that his dismissal from service was illegal and demanded that the order of dismissal be withdrawn by the respondents and he may be allowed to resume his normal duties. etc.

The respondents did not reply his grievance notice of the applicant. The applicant, therefore, filed the present application under section 25‑A of I . R .0. 1969 on 27‑4‑1985 in this Court.

After service of notice etc. on the respondents, legal objections were filed on their behalf wherein it is stated that this application filed by the applicant is time‑barred, therefore, this application is not maintainable, and is liable to be dismissed.

I have heard Mr. Muhammad Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. S.M. Yaqoob learned counsel for the respondents and have also perused the relevant record of this case.

Section 25‑A(1) of I.R.O., 1969 provides as follows:‑

"A worker may bring his grievance in respect of any right guaranteed or secured by him or under any law or any award or settlement for the time being in force to the notice of his employer in writing, either himself or through his shop steward or (collective bargaining agent) within three months of the day of which cause of such grievance arises"

Having regard to the relevant provisions of section 25‑A of I. R.O. 1969 it may be stated that it is admitted position that the services of the applicant were terminated by the respondents on 20‑12‑1984. The applicant served his grievance notice, dated 1‑1‑1985 which the respondents did not reply. The applicant had to wait 15 days for reply to his grievance notice and thereafter he should have filed his grievance petition under section 25‑A of I.R.O., 1969 in this Court within 2 months on or without 16‑3‑1985. But on the contrary he filed the present application on 27‑4‑1985 in this Court which was far beyond the limitation period as prescribed under the provisions of I.R.O., 1969 and, therefore, this application on the face of it is time barred.

It may further be pointed out that the argument of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant that second grievance notice, dated 17‑3‑1985 was given to the respondents and the time of limitation shall run from the second grievance notice of the applicant. Such an argument of the learned counsel is clearly misconceived and has no force. In this respect section 25‑A of I.R.O., 1969 as mentioned hereinabove may be referred. Furthermore it may be stated that no particular form of grievance notice is prescribed under law nor there is any such thing as second grievance notice required to be given to the employers by the employee. It is now well‑settled position at the law that first grievance notice in whatever form is given by the applicant to his employers is to be treated as a grievance notice. Therefore, the first grievance notice, dated 1‑1‑1985 in this case was given by the applicant to the respondents. The application filed by the applicant on 27‑4‑1985 is clearly time‑barred. The learned counsel for the respondents placed his reliance on the following authorities:‑

(1) 1979 P L C 175. (2) 1979 P L C 431.

(3) 1986 P L C 55. (4) 1978 P L C 350.

(5) 1983 P L C 458. (6)1981 P L C 605.

All those authorities support the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents to the effect that the present application filed by the applicant is clearly time‑barred and is not maintainable at law.

It may, however, be stated that the learned counsel for the applicant referred me to the following authorities:‑

(1) P L D 1985 S C (AJ&K) 85;

(2) P L D 1984 S C (AJ&K) 71.

(3) P L D 1984 Pesh. 57.

It suffices to say that all these authorities are on the point of interpretation of law i.e. section 25‑A of I.R.O., 1969 to say the least in this respect position is now well‑settled by virtue of interpretation having been made by the superior Courts as referred hereinabove. Therefore, the authorities referred by the learned counsel for the applicant are quite irrelevant and are not applicable in the present case.

In short, in view of the above this application being time‑barred is not maintainable and is dismissed and stands disposed of accordingly.

A.E.

Application 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.