' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--- This judgment is to be read in continuation of my order, dated 6-6- 2005 whereby I have issued a notice to the respondents only to consider as to from which date the impugned judgment, dated 17-6-2004 of the learned Punjab Labour Court No,IX, Multan shall take effect i,e, from the date of appointment of the respondents or from the date of filing the grievance petitions.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that since his clients have been held to be permanent workers, they would be entitled to the benefit w.e.f. The date of appointment.
3. Learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, contends that the manner of initiating grievance procedure and, ultimate filing of a grievance petition in a Labour Court stands prescribed by law and in case the respondents thought it fit to approach the Court after lapse of several years, the appellants are not to be penalized.
4. I have considered the said contentions. Now, I find that the grievance petition was filed jointly by the respondents on 12-7-1999. It was decided on 17-6-2004 and it was held that the petitioners Nos.1 to 14 in the grievance petition are declared as permanent employees/ workmen and found entitled to benefits w.e.f. Respective dates of their appointments. Now I confronted the learned counsel as to whether the grievance petition could have been held without observing the grievance procedure as provided in section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969. The answer is in the negative. This being so the learned Labour Court could not have given retrospective effect to the said judgment.
To my mind at the most the judgment could have been made effective from the date when the grievance procedure was initiated. The F.A.O. Is accordingly allowed inasmuch as while upholding the impugned judgment whereby the petitions of the said 14 employees were accepted. I modify the same and declare that the judgment would take effect from the date of grievance notice (Exh.
P. 1).
' No order as to costs.