1984 PLC(CS) 1215

The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant who is a Kanoongo in Lahore Development Authority is being proceeded against for some alleged misconduct. Show‑cause notice has been issued to him to the effect why he be not dismissed from service. It is argued that the charge‑sheet is time‑barred and no enquiry has been held. According to Standing Order 15 (4) following of procedure given in it is necessary for dismissing a worker for some misconduct. If at all the assertions of the appellant are correct, he as yet has no cause of grievance because no order of dismissal has been passed and only show‑cause notice to dismiss has been issued. The respondent may refrain from passing the extreme penalty of dismissal if in reality there is any defect. If tile appellant feels interested that a penalty short of dismissal, that may be in his view legal, may be imposed upon him, he not have, instead of invoking the provisions of section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 asked the employer in answer to the show‑cause notice to pass minor penalty. The petition did not disclose any cause of grievance and thus was rightly rejected. Needless to say that when a petition does not disclose any cause of grievance, the plaint (petition) can be rejected. Learned counsel has cited P L D 1979 Kar. 640 but it has not been discussed that on the issuance of a show‑cause notice the matter can be brought before the Labour Court. A civil suit was brought and it has been held that Labour Court had jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of the civil Court was barred.

2. As a result of what has been said above, the appeal is dismissed in limine.

A. E. Appeal dismissed