MANZOOR AHMAD Versus CHIEF ENGINEER, HIGHWAYS DEPARTMENT, HYDERABAD

DECISION

This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 10‑3‑1984, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. VII, Sukkur, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was employed in the respondent establishment since 1963 and at the relevant time he was working as Road Mistry. Besides this, the appellant was also General Secretary of the Sind Highways Mazdoor Union which was a C.B.A. It was claimed by the appellant that due to his legitimate trade union activities he developed annoyed with the respondents and ultimately he was removed from the employment on 29‑10‑1979. Thereafter, the appellant filed his grievance petition and in result he was re‑instated in service with back benefits and transferred from Larkana to Hyderabad, vide letter dated 7‑2‑1983. The appellant being aggrieved with this transfer order submitted a grievance notice on 12‑5‑1983 and thereafter the grievance petition.

3. The respondents resisted the petition by denying the allegations of the appellant and they had also raised legal objections to the maintainability of the petition being time‑barred. Both the parties filed their affidavits‑in‑evidence and were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court had passed the impugned order dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant hence, this appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. Shabbir Ahmad Awan, the learned Advocate for the appellant. Nemo was present on behalf of the respondents No intimation has been sent, I have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. It is an admitted fact that the appellant being a General Secretary of the union, had submitted a Charter of Demands on 16‑4‑1985 and that after submission of this Charter of Demands, the appellant was relieved from Larkana, vide order, dated 21‑4‑1983, which was received by him on 24‑4‑1983. Mr. Shabbir Awan has submitted that thereafter, on 12‑5‑1983, the appellant had served grievance notice upon the respondents which was quite within time. In view of this position, as the cause of action, admittedly accrued A to the appellant under relieving order, dated 21‑4‑1983, therefore, his grievance notice and ultimately the grievance petition were both well within time. The learned Labour Court has erred in holding the grievance notice and the grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969, as time‑barred. I would treat the same within time and thus maintainable. As the respondents have miserably failed to controvert the allegation of the appellants on the issue of the merits of the case and the illegal removal of the appellant from his service, therefore, in the interest of justice to an aggrieved party, I would set aside the dismissal order of the appellant.

6. For the above reasons, I would set aside the impugned order and allow the present appeal. The appellant is directed to be re‑instated in service with full back benefits forthwith.

M. Y. H./1018/Lb.S

Appeal allowed