BISMILLAH FABRICS (PVT.) LTD. Versus ABDUL BASIT
JUSTICE (RETD.) CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, CHAIRMAN.--- These two cross appeals have been directed against the impugned orders dated 28-04-2016 passed by the learned Punjab Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad. Establishment appellant (who hereinafter referred as "appellant") while Abdul Basit (who hereinafter referred as "respondent").
2. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the grievance petition are that the respondent is practicing Advocate and was serving as Assistant Admin Manger in the appellant establishment from 24-08-2011 as a permanent employee under Employment Code No.992440005. The respondent was performing the outdoor duties which included clerical and manual in nature. During this period, he performed his entire duties satisfactorily, without any objection, show-cause notice, charge sheet, inquiry or allegation of misconduct. The respondent was performing all his duties outside the premises of BFL, so he has been properly used to inform about his duties to the appellant establishment before or after such outdoor duty through E-mail and as well as telephone. Because of reasons mentioned above his attendance was manually calculated as per Gate Register IN/OUT record. He was acting upon the instructions given to him by the Director BFL through the Deputy Manager (Admin and HR) and as per instruction by security incharge and also by the Personal Assistant of the Director etc. During his outside duties, he has to spend for expenses for photocopies and other official expenses along with CNG charges during the official outdoor duties out of his own pocket. The respondent was forcibly stopped from performing his duties while Deputy Manager took his charge from 02-01-2012 and he was illegally terminated from his service verbally on 18-01-2012. Despite the fact that the respondent was present in BFL on 18.01.2012. Deputy Manager verbally terminated the service of respondent without issuing any charge sheet or show-cause notice. The respondent asked the Director through E-mail about such order but Director did not reply. Further asserted that because of verbal termination of service on 18-01-2012 the respondent sent a departmental appeal on 25-01-2012 for setting aside order dated 18-01-2012 but there was no response and thereafter, he sent legal notices on 16-05-2012 and 22-06-2012 but no action has been taken so far. Ultimately the respondent served the appellant establishment with a grievance notice and then filed grievance petition.
3. The grievance petition was adjudicated upon. Learned Punjab Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad vide its order dated 28.04.2016 decided the grievance petition in the following terms:--
"A bare perusal of the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by both the parties, it is proved that the petitioner was terminated orally through telephonic cell. As the petitioner was appointed on permanent nature of job and he was confirmed after three months of his appointment, therefore, the respondents must have issued show- cause notice to the petitioner and after seeking reply of the show-cause notice, should have proceeded in accordance with law after conducting regular inquiry against him but the respondents have not adopted such procedure. The RW-1 has admitted that the petitioner was never issued any written notice about his poor performance and misconduct. There was no other complaint against the petitioner. He has stated that the petitioner remained absent from duty for 23 days but no proof of his absence has been produced by the respondents. The documents produced by the petitioner in support of his version and oral statement make out his version. Whereas, the statement of the RW-1 and documents produced by the respondents do not rebut the evidence of the petitioner and support the version of the respondents. Therefore, it is held that the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated at the post of Assistant Admin Manager from the date of his termination. He is also entitled to receive Rs.15000/- which he has spent from his own pocket and one month salary of Rs.18000/- which become total Rs.33000/-. Anyhow, the petitioner is not entitled to receive other back benefits from the date of his termination as he did not remain jobless. He has been practicing as a lawyer in the district courts, Faisalabad. So, the petitioner does not fulfill the legal requirements of remaining jobless during the period of his termination. The petition, in hand, is partly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. The respondents will bear the costs of the petition."
4. Hence these appeals on the grounds mentioned therein.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant inter alia, contended that the appellant challenged the very maintainability of grievance petition. Further contended that the respondent was terminated from service on 18.1.2012. The respondent served the appellant establishment with grievance notice on 16.5.2012 and thereafter filed his grievance petition on 3.10.2012 which were badly barred by limitation and this aspect of the matter was not considered by the learned Labour Court below while deciding the matter. The appellant prayed that appeal be accepted and impugned order be set aside.
6. Conversely learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the grounds raised in the memo. of appeal and argued in favour of impugned order. Learned counsel for the respondent also prayed that his appeal be accepted and impugned order be set aside.
7. Arguments heard and record perused.
8. According to the grievance petition the respondent is practicing advocate and was serving as Assistant Admin Manger in the appellant establishment from 24-08-2011 as a permanent employee under Employment Code No.992440005. The respondent was performing the outdoor duties which included clerical and manual in nature. During this period, he performed his entire duties satisfactorily, without any objection, show-cause notice, charge sheet, inquiry or allegation of misconduct. The respondent was performing all his duties outside the premises of BFL, so he has been properly used to inform about his duties to the appellant establishment before or after such outdoor duty through E-mail and as well as telephone. Because of reasons mentioned above his attendance was manually calculated as per Gate Register IN/OUT record. He was acting upon the instructions given to him by the Director BFL through the Deputy Manager (Admin and HR) and as per instruction by security incharge and also by the Personal Assistant of the Director etc. During his outside duties, he has to spend for expenses for photocopies and other official expenses along with CNG charges during the official outdoor duties out of his own pocket. The respondent was forcibly stopped from performing his duties while Deputy Manager took his charge from 02-01-2012 and he was illegally terminated from his service verbally on 18-01-2012. Despite the fact that the respondent was present in BFL on 18.01.2012. Deputy Manager verbally terminated the service of respondent without issuing any charge sheet or show-cause notice. The respondent asked the Director through E-mail about such order but Director did not reply. Further asserted that because of verbal termination of service on 18-01-2012 the respondent sent a departmental appeal on 25-01-2012 for setting aside order dated 18-01-2012 but there was no response and thereafter, he sent legal notices on 16-05-2012 and 22-06-2012 but no action has been taken so far.
9. The contents of para No.8 of grievance petition has been reproduced as under:--
"That because of verbal termination of services on 18-01-2012, the petitioner had sent a departmental appeal on 25-01-2012 for setting aside this order and otherwise to issue a written order but there was no response. Thereafter the petitioner sent legal notices on 16-05-2012 and on 22-06-2012 but no action has been taken so far."
Thereafter on 3.10.2012 the respondent filed his grievance petition.
10. This Tribunal observed that the appellant took a specific preliminary objection No.6 in his written reply of the grievance petition that grievance notice and grievance petition both are barred by limitation but while dictating the judgment learned Labour Court below did not address this issue which was mandatory in nature.
11. When confronted learned counsel for the respondent could not account for the delay in filing grievance notice as well as grievance petition.
12. This Tribunal agree with the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and is of the considered view that grievance notice as well as grievance petition both were badly barred by limitation, which fact was not considered by the learned Labour Court below while deciding the grievance petition.
13. This Tribunal also agree with the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that an advocate becomes after qualifying law graduation, an advocate is a member of legal fraternity. A person who publicly support and recommend a particular cause or policy. An advocate is a person who is supporter, exponent, promoter, defender, friend spokesman. He is known as cream of the nation who is governed under the legal Practitioner and Bar Counsel Act and Bar Councils. In present case, the respondent advocate was appointed on the post of Assistant Admin Manager on an executive post. Thereafter, by no stretch of imagination an advocate appointed at the post of Assistant Admin Manager can be termed a "WORKMAN".
14. The upshot of above discussion is that the appeal filed by the appellant is accepted. Impugned order dated 28.4.2016 passed by learned Punjab Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad is set aside. Grievance petition is also rejected and as a consequence appeal filed by respondent Abdul Basit, is dismissed on merit as well as on the point of limitation declaring that the grievance petition was badly barred by limitation.
WA/12/PLT Appeal accepted.