PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus GHULAM SHABBIR

This is an appeal directed against the decision dated 3‑2‑1987 recorded by the learned Labour Court No.9, Multan, whereby the respondent was directed to be re‑instated in service with back benefits.

2. The respondent was removed from service on 7‑2‑1981 but grievance notice was given in 1985. The allegation made against the respondent was that he had without permission transported rice of a private party to Rawalpindi on the truck belonging to the appellant. A case under sections 411 and 379 was got registered against the respondent on 2‑12‑1980 in which he was punished with imprisonment on 15‑6‑1981 but was acquitted on appeal to the Sessions Judge. An other case on account of the same incident under a different law was also registered from which he was acquitted in 1984. Copy P.1 of the dismissal order was sent to the respondent by the appellant on 8‑2‑1981 vide postal receipt Exh. R‑6. The learned Labour Court has treated the grievance notice within time holding that the cause of grievance had arisen to the respondent from the date of acquittal.

3. On merits .the respondent had a good case but the learned Labour Court has erred in holding that the grievance notice was within time. The respondent was removed from service on account of registration of a criminal case against him and for the misuse of the vehicle belonging to the appellant. Cause of grievance arose to the respondent on 7‑2‑1981 when he was removed from service and not from the date he was acquitted from the criminal case by the Criminal Court. From postal receipt R‑6 it stands and amply proved that copy of the order of removal from service P.5 was sent to the respondent by registered post. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that R.W.1 admitted that he had no proof of the fact that the letter had reached the respondent. No person usually accompanies the postman for the delivery of the letter. R.W.1, therefore, rightly said that there was no proof of the delivery of the letter. If it is proved that a letter was sent by registered post on the correct address, the C presumption is that it had reached the addressee if it had not come back undelivered. There is no evidence that the letter had been returned to the appellant undelivered. Even otherwise since the respondent did not perform his duties after he was removed from service, it is clear that he knew that he was no more service. He, therefore, should have within three months from the date of removal from service sent the grievance notice.

4. As a result the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned order, the grievance petition is dismissed on the ground that the grievance notice was badly time‑barred.

A.E. /302/Lb.P

Appeal accepted.