DECISION ' This appeal by a workman calls in question a decision of the learned Second Labour Court given on 13th December, 1979 dismissing the grievance petition filed by the appellant, in which he had challenged the termination of his services, on the ground that the grievance petition was not maintainable as the necessary grievance notice had not been served upon the employer within three months of the arising of the grievance.
2. The case of the appellant as disclosed in his grievance petition, which was filed on 29th October, 1978 was that he was employed in the K.P.T., the respondents herein, as a carpenter ; that he proceeded to his native place on sanctioned leave for three months with effect from 26th January, 1977 that he fell ill at his native place and accordingly sent applications to the respondent establishment for extension of his leave, which applications were supported by medical certificates, that after recovering from illness, he reported for duty at the respondent establishment on 25th-February, 1978 when he was informed that his services had been terminated, that he preferred an appeal in accordance with the K. P. T. Act against the termination of his services but the said appeal was dismissed and accordingly. After serving a grievance notice upon the respondent establishment, he was preferring his grievance petition.
3. Although it was the contention of the respondent-establishment before the learned Labour Court that the services of the appellant workman were terminated by order, dated 24th July, 1977 the learned Court has held, and in my opinion rightly so, that the said order was not served upon the appellant. This view of the learned Labour Court was based on the fact that though the respondent establishment claimed that the termination order was sent to the appellant at his correct address in Campbellsport, by registered post, acknowledgement due, the A/D slip neither bore the full address of the appellant as given by him in his leave application nor even bore the postal seal suggesting thereby that the postal receipt was not genuine. The learned Labour Court, accordingly, took the view that the appellant for the first time came to know about the termination of his services on 25th February, 1978 when he reported for duty at the respondent establishment.
However, the learned Labour Court has taken the view that since the grievance notice was served by the appellant on the respondent establishment after the expiry of the period of three months from the date that he admittedly came to know of the termination of his services, his grievance petition was not maintainable.
4. Mr. Mughees Ahmed Samdani, the learned Representative of the appellant, submitted that in passing the impugned order, the learned Labour Court has lost sight of the fact that the appellant had admittedly filed a departmental appeal. Not only has the appellant, in his grievance petition, explicitly stated that he had filed a departmental appeal on 22nd April, 1978 but further copies of the said appeal and the decision of the respondent establishment, rejecting this appeal, were appended to the grievance petition. The departmental appeal had been filed in accordance with the provisions of section 23(2) of the K. P. T. Act, 1886. This appeal, as stated in the grievance petition, was filed on 22nd April, 1978 and was rejected by the respondent establishment, vide its letter dated 3rd October, 1978. The grievance of the appellant arose on the rejection of his appeal.
On the very next day of the rejection of the appeal the appellant sent the required grievance notice to the Chairman of the K. P. T. As such, there was no delay, upon the rejection of the appellant's departmental appeal, in serving the grievance notice upon the respondent. It may also be pointed out that the grievance notice was replied by the respondent establishment, vide its letter, dated 22nd October, 1978 and within seven days of the issuance of this letter, i,e, on 29th October, 1978 the appellant filed his grievance petition before the learned Labour Court. As such, not only the grievance notice was given within the period prescribed in subsection (1) of section 25-A, I.R.O., but further, the grievance petition was also filed, within the period prescribed in the said section.
5. 1 would, accordingly, set aside the impugned order of the learned Labour Court and the case to it for decision on merit as the appellant's grievance petition was rejected solely on the ground of delay in serving the grievance notice on the respondent-establishment.